44 o SCIENCE PROGRESS 



•Is that these occurrences are no more wonderful than the tricks of a professional 

 conjuror, which are later referred to in the review as " Prestigiatory (!) Phenomena." 

 It is doubtful whether this is true ; but even if it were, one must not forget the 

 difference in the conditions under which a conjuror works and those arranged 

 for the testing of a medium under the rigorous supervision of men such as those 

 mentioned at the beginning of this letter. Also one can hardly attach much 

 weight to a criticism which would lead to such results as, for example, that all 

 rabbits are produced out of hats. Then we have the old arguments as to the 

 discovery of trickery on the part of mediums and the greed for money. The 

 first is certainly the saddest passage in the history of spiritualism ; but to conclude 

 from it that all mediums are probably tricksters is obviously absurd on the face 

 of it. For trickery occurs in nearly every walk of life, but so, fortunately, does 

 genuine honesty also. The onus of proving the general proposition, " All mediums 

 are tricksters," is on the reviewer. Exactly similar remarks apply to the question 

 of money payments ; but the fact that a considerable number of mediums make 

 a special point of refusing to accept payment of any kind is altogether ignored. 

 As for the " poor Indian juggler " referred to, it need only be pointed out that 

 the Indian fakirs are but the lowest order of a priesthood whose superior members 

 claim to perform far more wonderful things, avowedly by the aid of spirits . 



After all this, the condescending crumb of praise to the " ghost-hypothesis " 

 as "an anodyne for bereavement and a stimulant for noble effort" is nothing 

 less than an insult, especially at the present time. I have expressed my opinions 

 somewhat strongly : but surely it is high time that this sort of thing should stop. 

 The dispute is about certain matters of fact, and therefore can only be settled 

 by direct empirical observation. Jeering criticism is quite futile, and merely 

 reflects unfavourably on the critic. It is the noblest ideal of science to face 

 all the facts, to give a fair field and no favour, and consequently to dismiss 

 no statements which have reasonable backing from men of science without 

 careful and scrupulously rigid investigation. 



The reviewer says that " we (busy men) would decline to waste our time 

 over such a foolish undertaking" as (by implication) the investigation of 

 spiritualism. Perhaps he is too busy to do so ; then clearly he ought also to 

 be too busy to indulge in jibes and what he rightly calls " amateur " criticism 

 at the expense of the spiritualists. Certainly he has been too busy to trouble 

 to acquaint himself more than very superficially with the real nature of the 

 issues involved. 



Yours faithfully, 



C. A. Richardson. 



October 25, 1919 



II. A PLAIN STATEMENT. 



Dear Sir,— Studies on Mind Theory may be conveniently grouped for reference 

 as follows : 



A. A vast mass of observations, experiments, and thoughts connecting 

 psychological processes with the nervous system or bearing on the evolution, 

 development, measurement, variations, and diseases of mind in men and animals — 

 all leading to the cumulative judgment that Mind is a product of Body. 



B. A smaller mass of introspective studies leading to the speculation that Mind 

 and Body are distinct, or even to the speculation that Body is a product of Mind. 



C. Certain alleged observations and experiments purporting to confirm B by 



