THERE IS a natural tendency, which is shared by all who are not unduly credulous
or superstitious, to dismiss as absurd, and obviously impossible, any highly
unusual idea and any testimony as to the experience of highly unusual phenomena.
Without this tendency, indeed, we should readily become the prey of every
unsubstantial figment of our imaginations, as, in fact, some unfortunates are.
It is to be observed, however, that the common objections to such phenomena rest
ultimately on an appeal to everyday experience, so that we argue that a thing is
impossible when it seems to contradict our own, or most other people's,
experience. This, of course, is a useful practical test, but it is
philosophically unsound, because the new facts, whose claim to admission we thus
deny, are themselves an extension of human experience.
It behoves us, therefore, if we propose to examine any alleged phenomena, to
reflect that the term "impossible" has an extremely limited field of useful
application. Many things which clever men once labelled impossible are
nevertheless true, and are now universally recognized as being true. The record
of the orthodox champions of science in this matter is not wholly spotless, as
many well-known stories attest. When Harvey proclaimed the fact of the
circulation of the blood, Venetian doctors ridiculed the idea. When Galvani
discovered electric currents he was set down by the scientists of his day as
being "The Frog's Dancing Master." Aviation was proved, over and over again, to
be contrary to mathematical physics; Hypnotism was opposed for a century. And so
it is without much value to dismiss modern psychic science on the mere ground
that some scientists disbelieve in it. On the contrary, when one hears
Flammarion's story of Dr. Bouillard and the Phonograph, one is inclined to
credit anything which such scientists deny. When Edison's invention was first
demonstrated at the Academie des Sciences in Paris, the worthy Dr. Bouillard
rose angrily and denounced the demonstrator as a ventriloquizing cheat. Further
than this, he had the hardihood later on to write that, after giving this
supposed invention a thorough investigation, he had convinced himself that there
was nothing in it but ventriloquism!
Now these examples of what we can recognize as the blind folly of
pseudo-scientists are not rare or in any degree unusual; they typify a state of
mind which is extremely common, even amongst present-day scientists, and which
has retarded the development of psychic science not a little. We must,
therefore, agree at the outset that nothing be deemed impossible except such
propositions as involve a necessary contradiction in terms; the proposition, for
instance, that a triangle having only two sides can exist, or that a material
object may be moved without the application of any external force. Perhaps there
will be some readers who will object even to this limited use of the word, and
maintain that "contraries may be equally true," as in William Blake's state
called Beulah. In fact, to a mystic such a proposition is but natural, and
mystics have, from the days of Lao-Tse to Ouspensky, maintained that logical
contradictions may be true, that the part may equal the whole, and that A may be
both A and Not-A. But these are considerations of greater subtlety than is
required for our purpose here; we can learn quite enough about the elements of
psychic science if we allow the impossibility of anything that involves a
logical contradiction in terms.
Granting now that much of what has hitherto been deemed to be impossible, and
therefore unworthy of investigation and discussion, is by no means so in
reality, let us see what is the proper attitude to adopt in an inquiry into the
supernormal and occult regions. Are we to throw the methods of science on one
side and cultivate an emotional state of faith, or are we to submit everything
to the test of experimental research and reason? It all depends on our personal
temperament and on our aim. If we wish to experience the workings of occult
forces, to see forms and phantasms, and to hear mysterious voices, then we must
cultivate our own latent powers in these directions, or at least cultivate our
faith in their reality; and this is most efficiently done by becoming a
Spiritualist and joining a circle of believers. But if our object is to know and
comprehend intellectually whatever may be true, then we must follow the same
methods that we follow in any exact science; we must examine critically (which
does not mean distrustfully) and we must devise experiments to test our
hypotheses. And in this connection we may well bear in mind the following
passage in which Freud (one of the greatest analytic minds of any age) discusses
the evidence on which some of his own conclusions are based. He says:
“It is a mistake to believe that a science consists of nothing but conclusively
proved propositions, and it is unjust to demand that it should. It is a demand
made only by those who feel a craving for authority in some form and a need to
replace the religious catechism by something else, even if it be a scientific
one. Science in its catechism has but few apodeictic precepts; it consists
mainly of statements which it has developed to varying degrees of probability.
The capacity to be content with these approximations to certainty and the
ability to carry on constructive work despite the lack of final confirmation are
actually a mark of the scientific habit of mind.” (Introductory Lectures on
Psycho-analysis, page 39.)
The best scientists, of course, are generally the least dogmatic. They recognize
that few of the most widely accepted scientific "laws" or even facts can be
conclusively proved, in the sense that a theorem of Euclid's can be proved.
Consequently it is with no little wonder that we find many of these same
scientists, who in Physics or Chemistry or Biology show such an appreciation of
the difference between a mathematical and an "evidential" proof, demanding the
most impossible degree of logical rigidity before they will consent to discuss
the evidence for a psychic fact. The most unquestioned facts of, say, Chemistry,
rest ultimately on human testimony; we accept the evidence as given by a quite
limited number of men, whose word we trust because, in the main, they all agree,
and because their statements enable us to co-ordinate a large number of other
facts. But if we attempted to verify any one chemical generalization without
assuming the truth of most of the others we should soon get so lost in the maze
of interrelated hypotheses and alleged facts that we should quickly realize the
practical impossibility of our task. It is then unfair, and indeed ridiculous,
to expect a psychic phenomenon to occur in such a manner that it is susceptible
of absolutely rigid, cavil-proof demonstration. On the contrary we should study
the evidence which has accumulated, using our discretion in judging which
witnesses are reliable, and out of this mass of evidence we should select what
seems capable of experimental proof, and of repetition under diverse conditions,
and should attempt to develop it.
That there is something to develop, something to test, and something by which we
may extend our knowledge of this world (I shelve the question of our knowledge
of the next) is, I think, not to be disputed. One fact is striking, and needs
explanation; namely, that there is a group of men, a group containing many of
the greatest modern scientists, who have deliberately given their testimony to
the reality of supernormal phenomena.
De Morgan,
Crookes,
Zöllner,
Lombroso,
Morselli,
Richet, Flammarion,
W. James, and
Lodge are perhaps the chief scientists of international renown who have
devoted a considerable portion of their time to patient experimental
investigation of psychic phenomena; and they have all staked their reputations
on the existence of facts unknown to the orthodox sciences. In the face of this
important fact, what is the average man to think? He may lightly say that all
these men, be they never so eminent, are mad, and therefore irresponsible for
what they have written. A noteworthy phenomenon, indeed, and one that would lead
us to suppose that anyone else whom we chose was mad; for these men have carried
on all their other work with as much sanity as anyone else could claim.
Another hypothesis, which has often been suggested, is that these men have
deceived the public, and written books full of falsehoods. But if scientists of
standing, men who have achieved their eminence precisely because of their
unusual fidelity to the exact truth, are to be thus accused when they proclaim
new discoveries, our whole outlook on humanity, and our whole attitude to
positive science in particular, must be changed. If Crookes' researches into
Spiritualism are impugned, what grounds have we for believing in his researches
on Electrons? One will say that the latter have been corroborated and expanded
by the work of other scientists; but so have the former also, and in some
instances by the very same scientists!
The third hypothesis, that the investigators have been hallucinated or
hypnotized by clever mediums, is equally ridiculous. Hallucination (by which is
not meant mere mal-observation, a fault which would keep any scientist in a very
obscure back row) is a very unusual thing outside the mad-house, and the
simultaneous and identical hallucination of two or more persons is so rare that
I doubt if a single authentic case has ever been recorded. We feel that if two
or more persons were simultaneously to see the same non-existent object, the
object would really be there! As to hypnotism, which we may take here to include
illusions induced by suggestion, it is usually the medium who is hypnotized, not
the person conducting the research. Finally, one cannot hallucinate or hypnotize
the self-registering instruments, cameras, cinematographs, phonographs, or
recording needles, which have been used repeatedly to confirm the objectivity of
various phenomena.
And so it is to the fourth hypothesis, namely fraud on the part of the medium,
which all objectors turn eventually. This, indeed, is an easy postulate, and a
medium is considered fair game. It is a fact admitted and deplored by all those
who investigate or believe in supernormal occurrences that a large number of
mediums do cheat in one way or another[1]; some habitually; some only
occasionally; some deliberately; and some while in a trance, and therefore not
conscious (with their normal waking personality) of their actions. And,
moreover, this is quite natural and easy to understand. There are religious,
personal, and financial motives sufficiently strong to make many people try to
impress others with their supernormal powers, or to convince them that "spirits"
are communicating. Moreover, the most genuine and honest medium may, while
unconscious, produce physical phenomena (raps, levitations, etc.) which are
supposed to be due to spirits, but which are in fact due to normal physical
means. This is easily explained, for, adopting for a moment the theory that a
genuine medium is able to materialize a kind of extra limb and raise a table by
means of this, we may suppose that such a procedure will only occur on account
of some desire on the part of the medium to lift the table. But if the entranced
medium desires to move an object, is it not natural for him to attempt this by
normal muscular action, such as is habitual to his organism, if it is possible,
rather than embark on the hazardous enterprise of materializing a pseudo-limb?
In general we might expect that if a medium can move an object by normal means
he will do so, and that supernormal methods will only be used when the habitual
physical mechanisms are inapplicable. This, of course, is not universally and
rigidly true, but it seems a useful point to bear in mind. As a corollary (and
also from the observations of many investigators) we must admit that the proved
occurrence of fraud in any one instance has very little relevance to the
question of the genuineness of other instances. It is only when fraud is
deliberate and consciously contrived that its discovery should seriously affect
our attitude towards the medium.
[1] Nevertheless Sir Oliver Lodge, in the
witness-box during a recent case, stated: "I have heard about fraudulent
mediums, but I have not come across them." He was, presumably, only referring to
deliberate conscious frauds; but still his opinion is significant and suggests
that he demands a rigorous proof of fraud before he will accept it as an
explanation, whereas many people am satisfied with the bare demonstration of its
possibility.
Moreover, even if a medium is shown to be consciously fraudulent, we cannot
always conclude that he is thereby shown to be incapable of genuine phenomena;
for we have to consider the facts of the individual case. Suppose, for one
moment, that a young girl is subject to trances and that in these states she
speaks strangely and moves objects unaccountably; that, in a word, some genuine
supernormal phenomena do occur. Is it not probable that she will soon be
regarded as a medium for spiritualist purposes, and become a person of
importance in a certain circle? Will she not be pressed to produce more
phenomena, and, finding that they are entirely beyond her voluntary control and
often refuse to occur, will she not be tempted to supplement them by simple
fraud? In most spiritualistic séances such fraud would be undiscovered, because
no one would try to look for it. I should say that every medium must sometimes
find circumstances are tempting her to help on, or to counterfeit, phenomena;
and thus many may become fraudulent.
But it is to be observed that all this must be based on a real power of
mediumship, without which it would never start at all! If you or I, for example,
were to put forward claims as to clairvoyance or the power to materialize a
spirit, our friends might perhaps say, "Well, we will see what you can do." But
unless in the first instance we could produce some phenomena which not merely
aroused interest, but convinced people of our powers, we should be at once
discredited.
Moreover, we cannot suppose that a medium who thus supplemented her genuine
powers by amateur trickery would be able thus to produce any of those numerous
phenomena in which the force exerted is quite beyond the normal muscular power
of even strong men; nor would such trickery deceive capable investigators who
specially set out to look for and to prevent it, and who imposed their own
conditions on the medium. Nor, indeed, would such a medium submit to the rigid
investigation demanded.
If, therefore, fraud is to be postulated to explain the feats of such mediums as
Eusapia Palladino, Eva C (Marthe
Béraud),
Kluski, and similar people, it must be conscious, well-rehearsed, skilled
fraud of such a kind as to baffle the prolonged and searching scrutiny of the
most competent scientists in the world. In short, it must be far and away
superior to anything that we know to be producible by a Houdini, a Maskelyne, or
a Devant. And yet most mediums have demonstrably no particular technical skill,
or conjuring ability, of this order.
Only those who take the trouble to read the detailed records of some of the
researchers[2] in this field can appreciate the difficulty of controlling
conditions, of observing, and of recording phenomena in such a way that, not
those present at the time, but the outside reader can say with certainty that
fraud could not enter. Perhaps it is impossible, but in so far as it is humanly
possible it has been done. That is to say, the probability of fraud in these
cases has become smaller than the probability of genuineness. When we find that
a medium is medically examined before and after the sitting, the examination
including all the natural orifices and extending so far, in one instance, as the
administration of an emetic to ensure that no objects were produced by
regurgitation or disposed of by swallowing; when the medium is completely
stripped and then sewn up in a specially designed costume; when the investigator
has his own special séance-room, to which the medium has no previous access;
when a cinematograph record is made of the phenomena of materialization; when
the process of extrusion of a substance from and re-absorption into the body is
both watched and photographed; when all this and yet more is done, and the
séance conducted in light up to 100 candle-power, it becomes rather imbecile to
cling irrationally to the conviction that it was all fraud. The evidence for the
analysis of water into Oxygen and Hydrogen is no stronger than
Schrenck-Notzing's evidence for the production of ectoplasm.
[2] e.g. Dr. Schrenck-Notzing's work,
Phenomena of Materialization.
We thus arrive at the position that we admit the occurrence of genuine
supernormal phenomena, and wish to sort them out, classify them, and attempt to
"explain" them. And here we may consider the meaning of the word supernormal. It
does not imply any more than that the phenomena in question are highly unusual,
and take place under conditions and through agencies of whose nature we are
ignorant. No scientist can admit the existence of supernatural phenomena or any
contrary to the laws of nature. If a fact appears to be contrary to our
statement of a natural law, and yet the fact is proved, then it is not the fact
which is above nature, but our statement of a law which is false. No fact can be
outside nature. It is necessary to accept this view, however much one may prefer
the frankly mystical philosophy which admits the supernatural, if one is to
consider the field of psychic science and attempt to co-ordinate and interpret
the facts; if our object, that is to say, is to gain an intellectual
comprehension of this subject. But I freely grant that perhaps this is a vain
endeavour, because our intellect may be incapable of dealing with the facts;
incapable of escaping from the hypothesis of Causation, which may be a chimera.
It is here that the Spiritualist and the scientist may reasonably differ. The
former has no faith in, and no desire to establish, intellectual representations
of the mechanisms by which supernormal phenomena occur; to him it is
intellectually sufficient to assume the existence of spirits and their power of
acting at will on the objects and minds in this world. He does not hesitate, on
occasion, to allow them something approaching omnipotence, and omniscience and
consequently he has no need to formulate a science. What is the use of
observing, of classifying, of experimenting, if a spirit may wilfully do
anything at any moment and invalidate all your conclusions? Nothing need ever
happen twice in the same way, for all is (or can be) at the mercy of caprice.
The most thorough Spiritualists, perhaps, recognize the irrationality of their
philosophy, and do not enter into arguments; they simply make assertions.
A scientist, however, has different intellectual needs. He must study the
conditions under which phenomena occur, and interpret their mechanism or perish.
He cannot bear to live in a world where nothing is orderly, nothing is
predictable, and everything happens through the caprices of demi-gods - where
tables rise in the air because the spirits have suspended the laws of gravity;
and where fire will burn him on one occasion and not on another, because the
spirits have set up vibrations which nullify the heat vibrations; where a
hostile spirit may knock him on the head at any moment, or a moral spirit
prevent him from placing a bet on the Derby winner. It is therefore incumbent on
him, when he is faced with facts of a psychic nature, to examine them and
attempt to interpret them as he would those belonging to any other category.
This, be it observed, is a very different thing from denying them without any
examination, which is a usual attitude of scientists today.
The investigation of the supernormal, however, is not a task to be undertaken by
any man, however eminent he may be in any department, without some preparation,
or without guidance from his precursors. Would a chemist consider himself
qualified to undertake a research on Cancer, without making himself as familiar
as possible with all that previous workers had done in this field, and without
undergoing any training in medicine and surgery? No more can he, or anyone else,
expect to do good work in psychic research without preliminary study. And yet
one constantly hears of men, frequently quite untrained individuals, who
investigate the subject for a few days or weeks, and then, having discovered
nothing, "expose" it as a delusion and a fraud! In any science the first task is
to observe, to note what happens, and to record the conditions under which it
happens. Then one may attempt to find out which of the many conditions are
essential, and so arrive at some judgment as to the inner nature of the
phenomena. But this takes time and needs patience unbounded. Yet the first thing
these amateur "exposers" do is to impose their own conditions; and when an
experiment brings no result they stop investigating, having really succeeded in
achieving their secret aim, which was to be able to go back and say: "There's
nothing in it!"
In this book we will not be put off by such people, nor shall we consider the
mass of dramatic and really touching material which has been provided in
abundance by enthusiastic Spiritualists and bereaved parents who have none of
the patient reserve of judgment, none of the sceptical critical faculty, nor the
familiarity with such psychological or pathological factors as may be operative
in any given instance - none of the mental qualifications, in short, which are
necessary in this field. We shall base our survey only on such cases as have
been fully observed and well reported by reliable men, whose observations have
been checked and corroborated by others. In taking this course we shall
necessarily limit our scope, and exclude many interesting phenomena - some will
say, exclude all the most interesting ones! - because our criterion relates to
the observer, not to the phenomenon. But the main object of the book is not to
review everything that may pertain to the field of Psychic Science, but only to
set forth the chief phenomena which have definitely and unquestionably been
verified, and in this way to lay out the foundations of ascertainable fact on
which the scientific superstructure may be built. If for any reason we depart
from this course, and refer to more doubtful cases, this will be indicated.
Spiritualists will doubtless note, and deplore, the fact that we cite authors
like Schrenck-Notzing,
Flournoy, Richet,
Mrs. Sidgwick, and
Osty, in preference to the champions of Spiritualism, and we will certainly
admit that in our opinion the definite statements and observations of these and
similar more sceptical writers carry more weight, other things being equal, than
those of the Spiritualists; though we have no hesitation in accepting the
observations of men like Zöllner, Sir Oliver Lodge, Dr.
Crawford, and any others whose work reveals a similar care and exactitude of
observation. If the fundamental tenets of Spiritualism are capable of scientific
proof, which is greatly to be doubted, it is only through the work of men like
these that the proof will be attained, and not through the melodramatic accounts
of séances published by laymen.
In my own case, I started with the desire to get at the basic established facts,
and to see where they necessarily led. The further I went, the more clear it
became to me that the popular spirit theory is not by any means satisfactorily
proved, and is usually based on quite insufficient arguments; though this may,
of course, be due to my own sceptical or agnostic prejudices. The reader will
have to judge, during the course of the book, whether the facts seem to be
capable of a naturalistic interpretation on the whole, or whether there is yet
any definite and positive proof that discarnate souls communicate with people on
this earth. Possibly he will arrive at a negative conclusion in respect to both
propositions; but at least he will, I think, see that a large portion of the
phenomena usually adduced as proof of spirit survival are no proof of it at all,
since they are equally capable of interpretation in terms of the living
personality.
Source:
"The Supernormal" by G. C. Barnard (London: Rider
& C0., 1933).
|