Certainly, every member should have an opportunity to be heard with reference to a proposition which logically involves changes in the name and constitution of the Association, but a vote taken without discussion will fail to express the thoughtful wishes of the members. Most of these reasons were mentioned in the discussion at the meeting. First, judging from the experience of the programme committee, it would be difficult to arrange a programme for such a section without interfering with the regular meetings. Second, our best psychologists are among our best philosophers, and their withdrawal from even a part of the meetings of the Association would be a serious loss. At the same time the greatest need of psychology at present is more of sound philosophy, and the greatest need of philosophy more of sound psychology.
Closer union is more to be desired than further separation.
This offers a wide range of subjects for those who are interested in ally branch of philosophy, and such papers always form a part of our programme. So far as possible, they are grouped together in the same sessions. Fourth, when it comes to the making of interesting programmes, philosophical subjects are by no means equal to scientific subjects. As a rule the papers are too long. Scientific theories and results can be stated briefly, but it takes time to set forth philosophical opinions.