side. And when a theory so spectacular and altogether out of the ordinary
is presented, the burden of the proof should very decidedly be thrown on the
positive side. We have no obligation or even excuse for accepting such a
theory on the mere presumption of the originator.

And that Freud's theory is weird and fantastic is a self-evident fact.
Perhaps the Clark University student who very carefully worked it up a few
years ago went a little too far when he said it was a chaotic inferno, but
at any rate, it is far removed from celestial harmony. Sidis takes about the
sanest attitude possible when he refers to certain Freudian writings as
being full of unconscious sexual humor. He observes further as does Prince
and others that the Freudian school is in reality a religious or
philosophical sect. He says that Freud's writings constitute the
psychoanalytic Bible and are quoted with reverence and awe. Kronfeld, in a
most valuable criticism, says that in comparison with Freud's conception of
the vorconscious and its work, Henroth's Demonomania appears a modest
scientific theory.

The attitude of the Freudians is, itself, worth noticing. They are very
prone to consider any criticism as very personal, and fly to the rescue with
all the fervor of a religious fanatic. A work on dreams, because it does not
bear out Freud in all details, calls forth thunderbolts from two continents.
This over-anxious attitude indicates that the belief in the theory is based
on an emotional condition rather than logical reasoning. Bernard Hart, who
is one of those happy individuals who get the best out of Freudianism, shows
the difference between the two kinds of belief by comparing our belief that
the earth goes around the sun and that the man who abuses a woman is a cad.
The cold, indifferent attitude toward the former is in marked contrast to
our warm lively interest in the latter, and the reason is that the belief in
the one is founded on scientific demonstration and in the other on our