io8 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



crucial points in the objections I raised, and has been tempted instead into 

 a torrential polemic which is little more than a reiteration in somewhat 

 expanded form of the opinions expressed in his original essay-review. 



Let us first consider what appears to me a comparatively minor issue, 

 although a large part of your correspondent's reply consists in the elaboration 

 of it. This is the statement that spiritualistic phenomena can be successfully 

 imitated by professional conjurors. Now, as I said in my first letter, I am 

 quite willing to admit that this may be so in all, or nearly all, cases, and I 

 do not think that any spiritualist would deny it. But what puzzles me 

 completel}'- is the precise weight attached to this argument by your corre- 

 spondent. As he says, the spiritualist's reply to it is that, in spite of certain 

 cases of trickery, " The manifestations of the conjuror and the medium 

 may be of the same class, but this does not necessarily prove that they are 

 always produced by the same agencies." Exactly — although I do not think 

 that any reasonable spiritualist would draw from this the conclusion your 

 correspondent supposes him to — namely, " You must therefore admit that 

 some of the manifestations are genuine" — but rather the more cautious one, 

 " You must therefore admit that the imitations of conjurors do not disprove 

 the genuineness of some of the manifestations." And surely such a con- 

 clusion is justified ; for conjurors can equally well imitate ordinary natural 

 phenomena, as in the well-known mango-tree trick. I pointed out in my 

 previous letter that your correspondent's argument would lead to such con- 

 clusions as that all rabbits are produced out of hats. This objection he 

 entirely ignores in his reply. Yet the whole matter hinges on it. Imitation 

 by conjurors cannot possibly establish a proof that none of the manifestations 

 is genuine ; the whole argument from it is quite beside the point. Accord- 

 ingly, I do not see how we are to avoid the conclusion that the large portions 

 of your correspondent's two communications which deal with this particular 

 aspect of the matter are merely a beating of the air. 



I am accused by your correspondent of mentioning four important sup- 

 porters of spiritualism, while omitting to refer to " the hundreds or thousands 

 of men of science who laugh at them." Such laughter may induce in those 

 who indulge in it a comfortable feeling of superiority, but its value as scientific 

 argument is not great. Any omission of mine was simply due to the fact 

 that I do not know of any eminent scientist who has impartially investigated 

 the alleged facts with the painstaking care and thoroughnesss employed by 

 the four I mentioned (they are few of many), and has returned from his 

 investigation with nothing but derision and utter disbelief in the genuineness 

 of any of the manifestations. In spite of this, your correspondent may 

 find it easier to believe that trickery is always employed, but in that case let 

 him refrain from ridiculing those who prefer to go more deeply into the 

 matter. 



But this part of the argument is of comparatively small importance. 

 The real crux is the combat between materialism and metaphysical spiritua- 

 lism. And here I am happy to note an advance (albeit small) in the direction 

 of philosophic clearness in that your correspondent now describes mind as 

 the " product of Body," and not (as before) as " the secretion of the brain." 

 But what arguments has he in favour of materiahsm ? None that I can 

 discover — only statements, mainly dogmatic. He speaks of " a vast mass 

 of observations, experiments, and thoughts connecting psychological pro- 

 cesses with the nervous system." Everyone will admit the existence of 

 such. But he goes on to say that they all lead " to the cumulative judgment 

 that mind is the product of Body." This is pure dogma. Many acknow- 

 ledged leaders of thought, both scientific and philosophic, are convinced that 

 they do not lead to any such judgment at all. And again he says, " While 

 the literature of [metaphysical spiritualism] may often be astute, clever, or 

 even occasionally instructive, it really does not weigh a straw against the 



