PSYCHICAL RESEARCH 769 



evidence as is available, rather than my opinion concerning 

 its value. 



What I desire most emphatically to repeat is that the most 

 important part of my article, as is stated in the article, is to 

 be found in the latter part. And it is the scientific side of 

 Sir Oliver Lodge's address to which I wished to attract 

 attention. In my criticism of his remarks, I expressed views 

 on metageometry, on the principle of relativity, on the principles 

 of mathematical method and their application to scientific 

 theories, which are somewhat at variance with those commonly 

 held among men of science. On several disputed points, I 

 was glad to note that Sir Oliver Lodge held similar views, 

 and I greatly regretted that the value of his support was dis- 

 counted by the introduction of what could hardly be described 

 as legitimate scientific matter. I would repeat that, in my 

 opinion, to concentrate criticism on the "spiritualistic" side 

 is an injustice to Sir Oliver Lodge. That, however, is a matter 

 for Sir Oliver rather than for me. With regard to my article, 

 I followed him, on that side, with great reluctance, because it 

 was my duty, as a critic, to deal with the address. But, so 

 far as I am personally concerned, I would most emphatically 

 say that, to concentrate criticism on that side of my article, 

 is an injustice to me 



