Reflection on Schmidgen

The reading on Wundt as a chemist I didn't find very convincing. I mean there are many early psychologists who initially started out as chemists, physicists, or physiologists. The fact of the matter is other then Wundt's knowledge of scientific experiments Schmidgen really didn't bring any other proof of Wundt's connection to chemistry. The idea of Wundt being influenced in psychology by being overseen by a chemist was far-fetched. I just don't believe that Schmidgen supported his claims well enough. I will say this though, I found his retelling of Wundt's experiment on table salt and urine was quite interesting. As a young scientist Wundt really seemed to have a grasp on the proper way to conduct experiment, even on his own. He was able to bring in all his methods such as varied conditions, repetition and comparative measurements into psychology which proved quite useful in experimental psychology years later.

As a history minor I have written and researched plenty of historically significant events. As a historian I do not believe that Schmidgen provided a full or clear picture of his thesis. As a good historian one must present both sides of the story, providing enough evidence to support one's thesis. Referring back to Blumenthal's writing on Wundt, Blumenthal writes that although in his early years Wundt did refer to Mill's chemical analogy, Blumenthal continues saying that Wundt did not believe that this analogy went far enough and eventually he disclaimed the analogy all together. By referring back to Blumenthal's writing on Wundt it is evident that Schmidgen did not read far enough into Wundt's opinions and instead only read into his educational and professional background to prove his thesis.