I HAVE been asked, as one of the very few professional philosophers interested
in psychical research, to give the concluding talk in the series entitled
Inquiry into the Unknown*. I am to tell you how the evidence for the alleged
facts which the previous speakers have brought to your notice impresses me as a
philosopher. And I am to say what bearing I think these alleged facts have on
the questions which philosophers discuss.
[1] Edited by
Theodore Besterman (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1934.)
The first thing that strikes me is the extraordinary indifference of nearly all
professional philosophers to the subject of psychical research. I will give some
examples. The nature of Time is a topic of great philosophical importance. It is
constantly discussed, and yet the philosophers who are most interested in it
ignore the alleged facts of precognition and of supernormal knowledge of events
in the remote past. Again, many philosophers have written eloquently and acutely
about immortality, but hardly any of them has paid the least attention to the
alleged communications of the dead through mediums or to their alleged
appearances to survivors. A subject which has been treated by nearly all
philosophers is the possible range and the inevitable limitations of human
knowledge; yet the alleged evidence for telepathy and clairvoyance is never
mentioned in these discussions. Lastly, the mutual influence of body and mind is
a standard subject of philosophical investigation; yet it is treated without
reference to the alleged facts of fire-walking, levitation, movement of objects
without contact, and materialization.
You might, perhaps, think that philosophers ignore the whole subject of
psychical research in their writings because they have carefully looked into the
alleged facts for themselves and have one and all found that there is nothing
there but fraud and delusion. If this were so, it would, of course, be highly
significant and important. But I can assure you that it is not so. Most
philosophers have never taken the trouble even to read the best of the relevant
literature, much less to do any investigation for themselves.
Now this indifference on the part of philosophers is quite inexcusable. Natural
scientists have their own special subjects of research, which are enough to
occupy a lifetime; and they are not to be blamed if they confine themselves to
these, provided they do not dogmatize ignorantly about what they have never
investigated. But no such excuse is open to philosophers. It is plain from my
examples that the alleged facts which they ignore are directly relevant to the
very problems which it is their main business to discuss. Quite apart from this,
it is the business of a philosopher to make a resolute attempt to see the world
steadily and to see it whole. He has not the right, which other scientists have,
to ignore certain aspects of it as irrelevant for his particular purpose.
Having passed this sweeping condemnation on my profession, I must in fairness
mention four very honourable exceptions.
Henry Sidgwick and
William James were philosophers of
great eminence, and they started the serious study of psychical research in
England and in the United States respectively. Their good example has been
followed by Professor Henri Bergson
in France and Professor Hans Driesch
in Germany, who are happily still with us.
I will now say something about the peculiar difficulties of psychical research.
There are always three questions to be asked about any story of a supernormal
event, and these must never be mixed up with each other. (1) Did the reported
event really happen, and is the description of it which the witnesses gave
completely accurate? (2) If so, can it be accounted for in terms of the already
known laws and properties of matter and of mind? (3) If it really did happen as
reported, and if it cannot be accounted for normally, can we suggest any
plausible supernormal explanation of it? And can we test our explanation by
further observations or experiments?
Now you might think that the first question, at least, ought to be quite easy to
answer with complete certainty in many cases. Unfortunately this is not so, for
several reasons which I will now explain to you. (1) Apparently supernormal
events have, indeed, been reported in all ages and nations. But they have never
been common, and, they are perhaps less common among contemporary Europeans and
Americans than in less sophisticated societies. It is only in connexion with a
few abnormal people, whom we call 'mediums,' that they happen at all frequently.
When they happen to ordinary people they do so only very occasionally and under
very special conditions. We may compare such events to total eclipses of the
sun, or to very rare diseases which few doctors ever get the chance of
observing. Such events cannot be produced or reproduced to order. They are very
liable to happen when no skilled or trustworthy observers are at hand, and to
fail to happen when such observers are present. So we seldom get an opportunity
to compare the reports of a large number of observers who have witnessed events
of this kind. This makes it difficult to get rid of mistakes due to personal
bias and misperception.
(2) Human testimony is extremely unreliable in matters of detail. We are very
liable to overlook incidents which are happening under our noses, and to think
that we have actually perceived events which we have in fact merely
inferred and which really never happened. All successful conjuring depends
on this fact, and most of us can be completely taken in by quite simple tricks.
The Society for Psychical Research has done some very careful and interesting
experiments on this point. These have shown that intelligent people, who know
that they are watching a trick and are trying to find out how it is done, will
nevertheless misreport what has actually happened to an extent which is almost
incredible. Any lapse of time between witnessing an event and making a report
about it introduces further chances of mistake, both positive and negative. We
forget essential facts which we did perceive, and we insert connecting links
which we never did perceive but which we think we remember.
(3) In the case of physical phenomena, such as materialization, movement of
objects without contact, etc., professional mediums lay down certain conditions
which, they tell us, are absolutely essential to the production of the
phenomena. Darkness, or a very dim red light, is commonly demanded. There must
be a circle of sympathetic sitters to give 'power.' The sitters must sing or
talk continuously in order to produce the right 'vibrations.' And the
materializations must not be touched, or serious injury may be done to the
medium.
Now we cannot say that these conditions are not necessary, and it is certain
that we get no physical phenomena to observe unless they are fulfilled. But it
is plain that every one of these conditions is highly favourable to fraud and
highly unfavourable to accurate observation.
(4) Very few professional mediums who claim to produce physical phenomena will
consent to be investigated under test conditions. Those who do will often demand
that a certain friend or relative or protector shall be present at all the
sittings. The investigators are then faced with the delicate problem of keeping
an eye on the friend while controlling the medium. Truly, the ideal psychical
researcher needs to combine the wisdom of the serpent with the apparent
harmlessness of the dove. Even under these circumstances many professional
mediums have been caught cheating. And, even when this has not happened, it is
commonly noticed that the phenomena become less and less impressive as the
conditions are tightened up, and that they fade away altogether just as the
conditions become fraud-proof. I am, of course, well aware that many
spiritualists of high reputation claim to have witnessed the most startling
physical phenomena in full white light in home-circles where the suspicion of
fraud or collusion is ridiculous. I do not question the good faith of such
witnesses, but I do think that it is most unfortunate that those who can perform
such wonders with such ease should so seldom be willing to repeat the phenomena
under test conditions in the laboratory of the Society for Psychical Research.
We can now pass to our second question: 'Granted that the events really did
happen as reported, can they be explained in terms of the already known laws and
properties of matter and mind?' Deliberate fraud is, of course, the most obvious
explanation of this kind. Speaking from a fairly extensive and intensive study
of the subject, I can say without hesitation that it is quite impossible to
explain the best of the reported cases of telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition,
and mediumistic communication in this way. As regards the reported cases of
physical phenomena, such as materialization, levitation, etc., I am much more
doubtful. I can sum up my opinion on this part of the subject, for what it is
worth, as follows:
(i) There is no doubt that the vast majority of the physical phenomena produced
by professional mediums are due to deliberate fraud; and the conditions under
which their performances take place make it generally reasonable to suspect
fraud even where it cannot be proved. Yet there are a few cases in which the
experiments have been done under extremely rigid conditions, by people who were
well aware of the pitfalls, and the results have been recorded automatically by
photography or some other device. I might mention as instances the investigation
of the materializing medium, Eusapia Paladino, described in Vol. xxiii of the
Society for Psychical Research Proceedings; and investigations on
Rudi Schneider, who claims to move
objects without contact, carried out by Mr.
Harry Price and described in his
book Rudi Schneider (1930). Those of you who have listened to the earlier
talks will know that Rudi is now being investigated by the Society for Psychical
Research, and will have heard something about him from Lord Charles Hope and Mr.
Theodore Besterman. It is fair to
state, however, that there is very strong reason to believe that
Eusapia Paladino practised deliberate
and long-continued fraud at most stages of her career. And, in Mr. Price's later
investigations of Rudi Schneider, published in 1933, an incident is reported
which casts doubt on the adequacy of the control that was then being used, if
not on the honesty of the medium. These facts illustrate admirably the annoying
complexity of the whole subject. All this shows how important it is to get rid
of the human factor as much as possible in all investigation of physical
phenomena. We must aim at getting a continuous photographic record of everything
that is being done by every one present throughout the whole period of a
sitting. The development of infra-red photography will eventually make this
possible. In a recent number of The Times there was an extremely clear
photograph taken of a dinner-party in complete darkness by this method. The
persons present were quite easily recognizable. The co-operation of skilled
experimental physicists would be of immense value to psychical research in
devising methods of continuous non-human control and record, which will work in
the dark or in a dim red light.[1]
[1] Since this talk was broadcast Mr.
Besterman and Mr. Oliver Gatty have succeeded in taking moving pictures in a
feeble red light in the séance-room of the Society for Psychical Research. See
their letter to Nature (14th April, 1934), cxxxiii, 369.
(ii) I am inclined to make an exception in favour of some of the startling
physical phenomena reported in connexion with the medium
D. D. Home, in the nineteenth century. Sir
William Crookes was a scientist who
displayed intelligence and experimental ability of the first order in all his
work before and after his investigation of Home. Crookes's account of his
researches on Home's mediumship seem to show exactly the same high qualities
which characterized all his other scientific work. It is surely unreasonable not
to attach very great weight to the remarkable physical phenomena which Crookes
claims to have witnessed and recorded in his laboratory under his own conditions
in connexion with Home. The attitude of the scientific world to Crookes in this
matter was characteristic and contemptible. When it was known that he was to
undertake this investigation, his colleagues cried: 'Now that a real scientist
is on the track, the fraud will soon be exposed!' When he had completed his
investigation, and had felt compelled by the evidence to accept the phenomena,
they said: 'Poor old Crookes! He has evidently gone off his head!'
(iii) There seems to be no serious doubt about the fact of fire-walking.
It must be taken along with certain well-attested stories of ordeals in the
Middle Ages and of the performances of certain Roman Catholic saints. The best
collection of such incidents will be found in a book by M. Olivier Leroy called
Les Hommes Salamandres (Paris, 1931). It remains to be seen whether such
facts, can be accounted for in terms of the normal physical and physiological
properties of human flesh. Undoubtedly the first move towards an explanation is
to refer, as Professor Seligman does, to the extraordinary influence of mind
over body which is illustrated by the production or the cure of blisters by
hypnotism or auto-suggestion. Even this kind of explanation is getting very near
to the supernormal, and it would have to be stretched to bursting if some quite
well-attested stories are true.
(iv) Personally I find it difficult, in view of the evidence, to resist the
conviction that certain Roman Catholic saints have been repeatedly levitated.
The 'levitation-fan,' if I may venture to use that expression, of the Roman
Church is St. Joseph of Copertino, (1603 to 1663). The evidence for his
performances is related and discussed in M. Leroy's book Levitation
(London, 1928). I do not see how to get over it.
To conclude this part of the subject: As at present advised, I am inclined to
think it rather more likely than not that there is a residuum of physical
phenomena which are not due to fraud and which cannot be explained in terms of
the already known laws and properties of mind and matter. But I do not feel
nearly so certain of this as I do about telepathy, clairvoyance, and prevision.
I may add that I think that there is adequate evidence for 'hauntings,' in the
following sense. Certain rooms and places are centres of 'psychic disturbance.'
Over a long period a certain proportion of people who occupy such a room will
have supernormal experiences of various kinds, which, in some cases at least,
seem to be all connected with a certain event which happened there in the remote
past.
We come now to our third question: 'Granted that supernormal powers do exist and
that supernormal events do happen, can we suggest any plausible explanation for
them?' I will begin with some general remarks, and then go more into detail. (1)
The facts are extremely various. There is almost nothing in common between
foreseeing a future event and being levitated, except that both are extremely
odd and that neither is susceptible of a normal explanation. It is therefore
most unreasonable to expect that any one supernormal explanation will
cover all the facts. The phenomena need to be classified, and different
hypotheses must be put forward to explain prima facie different classes
of fact. This does not preclude the possibility that we may, in time, come to
see important connexions between classes of phenomena which now seem utterly
isolated from each other. E.g. raps and other physical phenomena associated with
the death of a person may be a connecting link between purely mental phenomena,
such as communications through mediums purporting to come from the dead, and
purely physical phenomena, such as movement of objects without contact in
presence of a medium.
(2) Any hypothesis which opens up further lines of inquiry, by which it can be
tested, is worth consideration; and no hypothesis which is not of this kind is
of the least value. Merely to refer all the phenomena to the activities of
'spirits,' human or non-human, seems to me to be a typical example of a
perfectly useless type of explanation.
(3) There is a purely logical point which is very important and is often
overlooked. In trying to decide between several rival hypotheses in any region
of investigation there are always two questions to be considered. (i) Which of
them best explains the facts that we are investigating? (ii) Which of
them has the greatest antecedent probability, i.e. which of them is most
likely in view of what is known or believed about all other facts? The final
probability of any hypothesis always depends on both these factors, and the two
factors may point in opposite directions. The hypothesis which explains the
facts best may have much less antecedent probability than another which does not
explain them so well. Now the question of antecedent probability is always a
very difficult one. In making judgements about it we are peculiarly liable to be
influenced by irrational prejudices of which we are barely conscious. And this
difficulty is at a maximum when we are embarking on a wholly uncharted region,
as we are in psychical research. We now know so much about the ordinary course
of nature that, in explaining any normal phenomenon, all but a few hypotheses
can be ruled out as too unlikely to be worth serious consideration. But, once we
have passed beyond the normal, we have entered a region in which everything is
unfamiliar. Our lack of knowledge prevents us from thinking of more than a few
hypotheses, all of which may be quite inadequate. And it prevents us from
estimating the relative antecedent probability of the few hypotheses which we
can think of. The point about antecedent probability is admirably illustrated by
the question of human survival. Some people regard this hypothesis as
antecedently so unlikely, in view of the apparent dependence of the human mind
on its visible and tangible body, that they would not accept it however well it
might explain certain supernormal phenomena. Others, holding different views
about the nature of mind and matter, do not find the hypothesis in the least
antecedently improbable. This would be the real point at issue, e.g., between
Sir Oliver Lodge and certain other
psychical researchers who might accept all the supernormal facts which he
accepts.
I will now say something in detail about possible explanations of the various
kinds of supernormal phenomena. (1) To deal with precognition we shall probably
have to revise pretty completely the traditional commonsense view of Time. This
need not surprise us. There have always been great, philosophical difficulties
about Time. And the work of Einstein has shown that the commonsense view of Time
and of Space is quite inadequate even for the purposes of orthodox physics. For
interesting suggestions I would refer you to Mr. Dunne's book An Experiment
with Time and Mr. Saltmarsh's report on precognition in the Society for
Psychical Research Proceedings for February 1934.
(2) To account for telepathy we shall probably have to suppose that the deeper
unconscious layers of different minds interpenetrate and affect each other
directly. Perhaps it is only the more superficial conscious layers of our minds
which are isolated and cannot directly influence each other. Minds might be
compared to islands, which are joined in their depths by the bed of the sea, but
are separated above.
(3) Clairvoyance, and supernormal knowledge of past states of affairs such as is
described in the book called An Adventure, seem to lend support to a
theory which Professor Bergson suggested, on quite other grounds, in his
Matter and Memory. The theory may be put, very roughly, as follows. The part
played by the brain, the nervous system, and the sense-organs in cognition is
not, as we commonly think, positive, It is negative and selective. Each mind, if
it could exist in a disembodied state, would equally and impartially contemplate
everything in space and everything in past time. But in that state active life
would be impossible. The function of the organism is to select and concentrate,
by shutting off from the mind all that is not relevant at each moment for
interacting with the rest of the world at that particular time and place.
Clairvoyance and supernormal knowledge of certain past states of affairs might
then be the result of a partial and temporary breakdown of this selective and
concentrative function of the organism. I am not, of course, committed to this
theory; I am only reminding you that such a theory has been suggested by a very
distinguished philosopher, and that these supernormal facts seem to fit in with
it.
(4) As regards the physical phenomena, I have no explanation to suggest. It is
not profitable to theorize about them until they have been much better
established and much more thoroughly observed.
(5) Probably the question which is of most interest to many of you is whether
psychical research throws any light on human survival of bodily death. I do not
see that most of the physical phenomena have any bearing on this question one
way or the other. Telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, etc., have a certain
indirect bearing on it. They suggest that our minds are not so utterly dependent
on our visible and tangible bodies as they seem prima facie to be. This
makes it less antecedently incredible than it would otherwise be that our minds
should go on working when our visible and tangible bodies have broken up. Much
the most important direct evidence for survival is the messages which come
through mediums in a state of trance. Most of these can be explained quite
plausibly by telepathy from the minds of people still alive. But this is
certainly not a plausible explanation for all of them.
Of the residue many seem to suggest no more than the temporary persistence of
bundles of memory-traces of some kind. This would not constitute survival, in
any ordinary sense of the word. There is, however, a small class of mediumistic
communications which are most simply and naturally explained by the hypothesis
that they are what they claim to be, viz., messages deliberately sent by people
who have died, and are still conscious and active. Some of the
cross-correspondence cases and some of the book-test cases, which have been
elaborately investigated by the Society for Psychical Research, fall into this
class. We must add to these certain cases in which it seems as if a person who
has died has manifested himself in various ways to various members of his family
and friends, in order to console them or for some other specific purpose. Of
course the explanation which is the most simple and natural may not be the true
one. For reasons which I have tried to state, it is extremely difficult to pass
a completely objective judgement on the evidence. My own position at present
might be expressed, I think, as follows. As a result of my study of psychical
research I shall be slightly more annoyed than surprised if I should find myself
surviving the death of my present body.
In conclusion I will say why I think that all these phenomena are of immense
interest and importance. It is not because of anything intrinsically
great or elevating in them. The physical phenomena are, for the most part, even
if genuine, far less spectacular than those which physicists daily witness in
their laboratories. Most of the mediumistic communications consist of trivial
personal details, or (as it seems to me) second-rate ethico-religious twaddle.
Their importance is that they fall outside the well-known and well-established
laws and principles of physics and psychology. They thus show that these laws
and principles need, at least, to be supplemented and, perhaps, to be radically
transformed. In our own lifetime we have seen how a few intrinsically trivial
exceptions can lead to a complete transformation of the whole theoretical basis
of physics. For the facts which led Einstein to subvert the whole classical
theory of gravitation were certain small anomalies in the motion of the planet
Mercury, and a certain small bending of light-rays which can be observed only
during a total eclipse of the sun and then only with the most delicate
instruments. The odd, exceptional, inexplicable facts, however trivial in
themselves, are always the points from which the next great and fundamental
advance in human knowledge may be made. It is for this reason that I, as a
philosopher, attach so much importance to psychical research, and deplore the
indifference of most of my colleagues to the subject.
Source: The article above was taken from "Inquiry
into the Unknown" edited by
Theodore Besterman (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1934) and was originally titled
"Summing Up".
|