We would first like to say that we are extremely gratified as much by the vigor and vitality of our commentators' responses as by their material contributions to the theoretical basis of two disciplines, the history of psychology and psychology as a whole. Before replying to individuals, we feel that some clarification of our position in this dialogue is in order. We are, first and foremost, historians of psychology rather than philosophers of psychology. As such, we come from a tradition which takes a very broad view of the discipline of psychology (we strive for inclusivity) and at the same time one which has been, historically, relatively noncommittal in its adherence to any particular philosophy of history or science.