McDowell tries to refute Sellars' theory of sense impression. I argue that McDowell's criticism fails to refute Sellars' theory. (1) McDowell misunderstands Sellars' distinction of the scientific image and the manifest image or the causal order and the intentional order. This distinction is not the distinction of the non-conceptual and the conceptual. (2) McDowell's claim that Sellar' sense impression or sense content is postulated in terms of the transcendental perspective is false. It is postulated in terms of the causal perspective. (3) McDowell's claim that Sellars' theory of intentionality fails to justify the relation of the language and the world is false. It fails to distinguish between the empirical and the semantical or the empirical and the transcendental. Paradoxically, McDowell does not understand the transcendental task. My argument implies that McDowell does not treat the space of the natural sciences or disenchanted Nature seriously.