[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
August 1921


Arch NeurPsych. 1921;6(2):253-254. doi:10.1001/archneurpsyc.1921.02190020136014

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


In stating his opinion of the book, the reviewer is tempted to borrow some sentences recently used by the Cleveland physiologist, G. W. Stewart (Endocrinology 5:299 [May] 1921), in discussing a certain article: "In reading this paper and many others by 'clinical endocrinologists,' the physiologist can scarcely escape the feeling that here he has broken through into an uncanny fourth dimension of medicine, where the familiar canons and methods of scientific criticism are become foolishness, where fact and hypothesis are habitually confounded, and 'nothing is but what is not.' " Equally apropos is Stewart's comment on the contrast between the desert in which the physiologists and experimental pathologists have wandered and "the exuberant land of clinical endocrinology, flowing with blandest milk and honey almost suspiciously sweet." Granting that clinical medicine has a perfect right to run ahead of physiology if it can, such an advance is not promoted by almost delirious