January io, 1^95 



NA TURE 



247 



above the south and north horizoos, respectively, of those places, 

 making the considerable correciions needed by the earth's 

 curvature in the 6° of latitude between them, the re-ulling 

 height of the luminous arch appears to have been about ninety- 

 five miles above a place about fifty miles south of Dingwall. 

 But the times of observation and the altitudes used being 

 only roughly assigned, and only somewhat vaguely comparable 

 together, an uncertainly of, it may be several miles, must no 

 doubt attach itself to this determination. 



Two very slender and fugitive streamers only were seen at 

 Slough to rise from the horizon-glow before half-past seven. 

 But between about 7.35 and 7.40 p m. a dense tuft of 

 them, 8° or lo' wide, rose from a low, faint light-band then 

 visible at about half the altitude of the short arch-segment 

 across f, tj Ur>a; Majoris, crossing and enclosing that wisp 

 (^f light, to about half as high again as the wisp's altitude from 

 the horizon. This pillar of light grew faintly red before dis- 

 appearing, which it did in three or four minutes after springing 

 up, while the rest of the glow and the wisps (the one in 

 Hercules being the last one to be seen) also faded a.iay enirely 

 between 7.45 and 8 p.m. The distinct light-hand and the 

 tuft of reddish streamers were the only conspicuously bright 

 phases seen at Slough in the aurora of November 23, between 

 7.15 and 7.45 p.m., with the exception of the two very 

 faint and slender streamers which rose suddenly to a great 

 height across Ursa Majorat about 7.30 p.m. 



The base of the pillar-like projection, resting on the faint 

 lower light-bow, was at about 8°, and its summit when highest 

 at about 24° above a part of the north-western horiz^ n between 

 S or 10°, and iS" or 20' west from north. Its western side 

 would ihu^ be just vertically over Dingwall, if the lower arch 

 which (ormed its base was at the same time in the zenith of the 

 latitude of Dingwall ; and this, it seems quite probable was 

 actually the case, from the following description of the closing 

 scene, liy Mr. Pope, of the aurora's progress after the main belt 

 of light had liroken up and dispersed itself, at about 7.30. lie 

 writes : *' At 7.30 p.m. the glow had almost disappeared, while 

 the streamers at this hour were most intensely bright, and ap- 

 peared ta radiate from a .>-mall and distinct part of the sky 

 situated in R.A. 358°, Decl. 43' north. Pievious to 7.30, no 

 streamers had been observed to radiate towards the south, but 

 between this time and 8 p.m. streamers were seen radiating 

 from the aforesaid part in all directions. After 8 p.m. the 

 display gradually faded out, and at 8. 30 very little trace of it 

 could be seen. The appearance at the apparent radiant point 

 when the display was at its height was most interesting ; appear- 

 ing sometimes as a solid mass of aurora, then suddenly breaking 

 up iuto fragments, and as-uming most curious forms, uniting 

 again, and so on. Not the slightest trace of the display was 

 visible at 10,30 p.m." 



The altitudes of 8° and 24° observed at Slough, at the base 

 and top of the dense column of reddish streamers, nearly in 

 the direction (as described above) of Dingwall, must evidently 

 have related as direc'ly and definitely to this fine display of 

 radiation in the north of Scotland, ai the foregoing altitudes 

 at Slough of the bright band of light, before 7.30, seemed clearly 

 and obviously to supply good means for deteruiining approxi- 

 mately the hand's real height, by comparing them with Mr. 

 Pope's description of his view of the same band at Dingwall. 



Making the same needed correcti-m, as before, for the diminu- 

 tion brought about upon the apparent altitudes observed at 

 Slough by the efTect of the earth's curvature, we may thuG 

 deduce a resulting real height of 75 miles above the earth's 

 surface, approximately, at the bases, and of 193 miles, ap- 

 proximately, ahove the earth for the summits of the streamers 

 which clustered over the neighbourhood of Dingwall, and pro- 

 duced the magnificent spectacle of the auroral corona in that 

 part of Scotland. 



Should notes have been fortunately preserved at any other 

 towns in Scotland at considerable distances from, and especially 

 in lower northern latitudes than Dingwall, of the aspect, times 

 and bearings, or astronomical positions of this short but bright 

 aurora's rather peculiar features of development in its transient 

 display, much better conclusion; regarding the real positions 

 anil the extent and distribution of the spectacle might, without 

 doubt, be gathered from them, than those above roughly ex- 

 tracted from only very slight descriptions. But the roughly 

 reached results of the heights of the appearance may yet, for 

 the present, not be entirely worthless, on account of the 

 scarcely doubtful identities of the aurora's bright features, which 



NO. I3I5. VOL. 51] 



were recorded most dissimilarly in this rather surprising in- 

 stance, at two so very extraordinarily far separated places. 



.\. S. Herschel. 

 Observatory House, Slough, December 24, 1894. 



Peculiarities of Psychical Research. 



On page 200 I see that Prof Karl Pearson suggests that it 

 would be a good exercise for some one with a stricily logical 

 mind and plenty of leisure to criticise '" the products oflhe chief 

 psychical reseaichers." May 1 say, as a member of the S. P. K., 

 speaking for myself and fellow-workers, that we ask noihing 

 better than such a studious and searching criticism. One of 

 our main diflficulties is that our critics will not take the trouble 

 to study or even read our evidence, but are content to ridicule 

 what they conjecture to be our method;, and results from so 

 great an abitude of assured contempt, that we fail to recognise 

 ourselves in their travesty, and are therefore unable to derive 

 much benefit from their utterances. 



Thus, for instance. Prof. Karl Pearson, before writing his 

 recent letters, has evidently not taken the trouble to refer even 

 to the abbreviated summary of certain card-drawing experi- 

 ments contained in Mr. Podmore's little book ; otherwise he 

 could hardly make the statements he does concerning the S. P. R. 

 record of them. 



He objects to M. Richet's results as giving insufficient odds in 

 favour of telepathy, so that, as he says, it shows want of 

 acumen to adduce them. Would he then regard it as more 

 scientific to suppress them ? On the other hand, the enormous 

 odds against chance, shown in Mr. Gurney's trials, he also 

 says, on page 153, show a want of acumen (I don't know why, 

 but I expect because nothing could possibly exhibit anything 

 else on the part of an S. P. R. worker), and that such odds might 

 be otherwise accounted for. Does he then suppose that the odds 

 of, as he reckons them, tw'o thousand million to three are ac- 

 cepted by us as the odds in favour of telepathy ? Probably he 

 does, because there is at present no need to be fair to investi- 

 gators in an unorthodox field; but Mr. Podmore is careful to 

 slate the opposite, as follows (footnote to p. 27 of Mr. Pod- 

 more's little summary, in the Coiil/mporary Science Series, of the 

 evidence for Thou-.4ht transference so far as it exists at the 

 present time) : " Of course the statement in the text " [viz. that 

 " the probability for some cause other than chance deduced from 

 this result is '99999998"] "must not be taken as indicating 

 the belief of Mr. Edgeworth, or the writer, or anyone else, that 

 the above figures demonstrate thought-triinsference as the cause 

 oflhe results attained. The results may conceivably have been 

 due to some error of observation or of reporting. But the figures 

 are sufficient to prove, what is here claimed for them, that 

 .ttfWc' cause must l>e sought for the results other than chance." 

 And another qiolation may be permitted from Mr. Podmore's 

 pref-ice, which ought to silence irresponsible detractors like Mr. 

 H. G. Wells, and others, who seek to lead the world to suppose 

 that we have some cause at heart other than the simple ascer- 

 tain-uent of ihe truth, wha'ever it is, and that Mr. Podmore, 

 in particular, is a bigoted upholder of the certainty of telepathy. 

 This is the quotation: "The evidence, of which samples are 

 presented in the following pages, is as yet hardly adequate for 

 the establishment of telepathy as a fact in naiure, and leaves 

 much to be desired for the elucidation of the laws under which 

 it operates. Any contribution to the problem . . . will be 

 gladly received. ..." 



Now, I observe that Prof. Karl Pearson has a contribution to 

 the problem, for in N.M'UKE of December 27, 1S94, p. 2C0, he 

 refers to certain experiments of his own, wherein by pure chance 

 he obtained results against whieh the theory of probalrility also 

 gave large odds. Would he be good enough to let us have these 

 results more precisely, as recorded at the time and signed by 

 winesses, so that they may furnish us with an example of the 

 methods of a "real scientific investigator".-' It will be very 

 unsatisfactory if we have no'hing but his memory to rely on for 

 the facts ; and as he well knows, it is necessary to have the 

 whole of a large number of trials before dcduc'.ions from the 

 theory of probability are legitimately applicable. 



I observe, finally, that I'lof. Pearson, wiih plenty of good- 

 nature but some lack of originality, has refurbished Dr. Car- 

 penter's old joke about an "ortho-Crookes " and a " pseudo- 

 Crookes," and has directed it against me. I shall be well 

 content if he never manages to find a keener and more effective 

 weapon. Ot.iVER J. Lodge. 



Liverpool, December 29, 1S94. 



