CORRESPONDENCE 109 



mass of evidence (referred to above) — and most men of science, especially 

 the biologists, will agree." In view of current tendencies in thought, it is 

 nothing less than amazing that such a statement can be made in all con- 

 fidence ; for not only is it merely absurd to say that the literature of meta- 

 physical spiritualism does not weigh a straw, it is also far from being a 

 necessary conclusion that the evidence referred to is incompatible with the 

 theories advanced in that literature. Moreover, are the men of science, 

 especially the biologists, so wholeheartedly in favour of materialism ? What 

 of Driesch and Haldane ? What of the conflict (and no one-sided battle at 

 that) which is raging round the discussion of Mechanism and Vitalism ? 

 The wise man will truly refrain from dogmatising about the philosophic 

 beliefs of scientists. And what of modern philosophy itself, which has out- 

 grown Berkeley's fallacies and Kant's faulty psychology ? For, after all, the 

 issue between Materialism and Spiritualism is a philosophic one. Consider 

 a list of the most representative exponents of recent philosophic theories : 

 William James, Henri Bergson, Bertrand Russell, R. B. Perry, James Ward, 

 Benedetto Croce, F. H. Bradley — these represent nearly every shade of 

 modern opinion. But their works reveal in no uncertain accents how very, 

 very little there is to be said for the crass and pitiful materialism into which 

 your correspondent would apparently have us relapse, and how very, very 

 much is to be urged against it. I know of no modern philosopher of im- 

 portance who could be described as a ma.terialist, unless it were Haeckel — and 

 it is very doubtful whether he could be accurately described as a philo- 

 sopher at all. 



And now as to my " tremendous admission ! " hailed by your corre- 

 spondent with such delighted relief, that apparitions may be telepathically 

 originated. Certainly this origin may sometimes be, and probably often is, 

 an earthly one. But in very many other cases the details and accompanying 

 circumstances of the apparition strain to breaking-point the hypothesis that 

 it is due to telepathy from the living, while, if it is due to those no longer 

 on earth (even if telepathy be the means employed), the spiritualist theory 

 holds. As to the many other phenomena observed, your correspondent urges 

 that the}'' also may all be due to some " evil-disposed telepathist." The answer 

 to this is obvious : Judged by any criterion that the observers (or any other 

 possible percipient) can employ, these phenomena have precisely the same 

 status as those more ordinary groups of sense-data which constitute the hap- 

 penings of everyday life. We have no more reason for regarding the former 

 as collective hallucinations induced by an " evil-disposed telepathist " than 

 we have for regarding the latter as so induced. Your correspondent appears 

 entirely to overlook the fact that the actualities are the observed sense-data, 

 and that we know just as much or just as little about the ground of these 

 data when their sequence is familiar as when it is unfamiliar ; but in both 

 cases the data are objective in the only valid sense of that term. Psychical 

 research is simply the investigation, with a view to subsequent unification, 

 of certain comparatively unusual sequences of phenomena. 



In your correspondent's letter, then, when the wrappings are discarded, 

 I can find but two arguments, one maintained on particular, the other on 

 general, grounds. The one is concerned with imitation by conjurors, the 

 other with the truth of materialism. In conclusion, therefore, and by way 

 of crystallising the issues involved, I would like to ask him two questions : 

 (i) Does he, in spite of the objections I have drawn attention to, and of the 

 ridiculous consequences to which his view must equally lead if pressed to its 

 logical conclusion, yet consider that imitation by conjurors has any logically 

 important bearing on the truth of spiritualism, and, if so, why ? (2) Does 

 he regard the modern philosophers mentioned in the above list as the 

 "pseudo-philosophers" referred to in his essay-review ; and if not, how 

 does he propose to refute them ? In particular, how would he answer the 



