A Reply to the Quarterly Review. 9 
The following parallel passages show that my reviewer and myself differ but 
little in our estimates of the qualities required for scientific investigation, 
(Quarterly Review, Oct., 1871.) 
* Part at least of this_predisposi- 
tion” [towards spiritualism] ‘de- 
pends on the deficiency of early scien- 
tific training. Such training ought 
to include—r. The acquirement of 
habits of correct observation of the 
phenomena daily taking place around 
us; 2. The cultivation of the power 
of reasoning upon these phenomena, 
so as to arrive at general principles by 
the inductive process; 3. The study 
of the method of testing the validity 
of such inductions by experiment ; 
and 4. The deductive application of 
principles thus acquired to the pre- 
diction of phenomena which can be 
verified by observation.” 
(Quarterly Fournal of Science, 
Fuly, 1870.) 
“Tt will be of service if I here illus- 
trate the modes of thought current 
among those who investigate science, 
and say what kind of experimental 
proof science has a right to demand 
before admitting a new department of 
knowledge into her ranks. We must 
not mix up the exac& and the inexact. 
The supremacy of accuracy must be 
absolute.” . . . ‘The first requisite 
is to be sure of facts; then to ascer- 
tain conditions; next, laws. Accu- 
racy and knowledge of detail stand 
foremost amongst “the great aims of 
modern scientific men. No observa- 
tions are of much use to the student 
of science unless they are truthful 
and made under test conditions.” 
. ‘In investigations which so 
completely baffle the ordinary ob- 
server, the thorough scientific man 
has a great advantage. He has fol- 
lowed science from the beginning 
through a long line of learning; and 
he knows, therefore, in what direc- 
tion it is leading; he knows that 
there are dangers on one side, uncer- 
tainties on another, and almost abso- 
lute certainty on a third; he sees to 
a certain extent in advance. But, 
where every step is towards the mar- 
vellous and unexpected, precautions 
and tests should be multiplied rather 
than diminished.” . . ‘“‘ Inves- 
tigators must work; although their 
work may be very small in quantity 
if only compensation be made by its 
intrinsic excellence.” 
The review is so full of perverse, prejudiced, or unwarranted mis-statements, 
that it is impossible to take note of them all. Passing over 1 number I had 
marked for animadversion, I must restrain myself to exemplifying a few of 
them. 
The reviewer says that in my paper of July, 1870, my conclusion was 
“based on evidence which I admitted to be scientifically incomplete.” 
Now in that paper I gave no experimental evidence whatever. After 
testifying emphatically as to the genuineness of two of the phenomena, I 
gave an outline of certain tests which in my opinion ought to be applied, 
and, in a foot note, I said that my preliminary tests in this dire@ion had 
been satisfactory. Is this admitting that I had not employed such tests ? 
Is it fair to say that my results were “based on evidence which I admitted to 
be scientifically incomplete ?” 
