Abstract
Rappard (1996) argues that I claimed psychology has left its philosophic parent. This is not true. I stressed that philosophy and the sciences are based on observation and induction. Contrary to Rappard, observation is not experimentation and there is no confusion between meanings of `philosophy'. My view that experimentation is a form of observation does not find a parallel in psychology. Experimentation is not it means. It is the means to test hypotheses arrived at inductively. Contrary to Rappard, my concept of theoretical psychology is not narrow. It is a different theory. In it there is room for the theoretical entities needed to explain laws, if these entities derive from mental experimentation. The explanatory function can also be accommodated in my view without neglecting metatheory.