may be asserted that the Kantian the- ory went wrong because it took distinctions that are genuine and indispensable out of their setting and function in actual inquiry. It generalized them into fixed and wholesale distinc- tions, losing sight of their special roles in attainment of those tested beliefs which give security. Consequently artificial com- plications were engendered, and insoluble puzzles created. Take for example the fragmentary and isolated character of sense-data. Taken in isolation from acontext in aparticu- lar inquiry they undoubtedly have this character. Hence when they are generalized into acharacter at large, the result is the doctrine of the disconnected "atomicity" of sense-data. This doctrine is common to sensationalism and to some forms of the new realism, along with Kantianism. As amatter of fact, smells, tastes, sounds, pressures, colors, etc., are not iso- lated jthey are bound together by all kinds of interactions or connections, among which are included the habitual responses of the one having the experience. Some connections are organic, flowing from the constitution of the subject. Others have be- come engrained in habit because of education and the cus- tomary state of culture. But these habitual connections are obstacles rather than aids. Some of them are irrelevant and mis- leading. In any case, they fail to provide the clews, the evi- dence, which is wanted in the particular inquiry in hand. Con- sequently, sense qualities are artificially isolated from their ordinary connections so that the inquirer is free to see them in anew light or as constituents of anew object.