I spent the following autumn and winter writing my paper on “Science, Scientism, and Professional Responsibility.” I intended it as my swansong on the topic that above all others had preoccupied me for the preceding 35 years: relations between science and practice in psychology. As it came out, the paper started with a strong definition of science, continued with a nonpejorative definition of scientism, proceeded at length through implications of those concepts for responsible practice and rigorous education in psychology, and ended with a proposal for embracing William James’ philosophy of pluralism (which he propounded so brilliantly in 1908 that no one has ever improved it) as a conceptual and attitudinal framework for respectful political cooperation and effective working relationships between researchers and practitioners in our field. During the many months I was working on the project, I mentioned it to a considerable number of colleagues in the “what are you doing these days?” conversations that professors have, and several of them asked to see the paper when I completed it. So I sent copies to them, as well as a few other people whose opinions I valued. Of course I sent a copy to Meehl. 164Somewhere along the line of the several brief exchanges we had in the interim, I told him my essay was 30% Meehl, 30% William James, 30% Peterson, and 10% everybody else.