1882.] 
r Analyses of Books. 677 
the teeth of avast and ever-increasing mass of evidence, tells 
us that the earth is flat, and that phosphorus is soluble in water 
as such ; suppose that a third, without any systematic knowledge 
of biology, without any original observations or experiments, 
undertakes to overturn what is commonly called “ Darwinism,’’ 
we are not bound to undertake any formal refutation of their 
errors. Before they could understand our arguments they would 
be compelled to acquire knowledge which they at present do not 
possess. But, on the other hand, if a man habitually truthful, 
sober-minded, and having no personal interest in the matter, lays 
before us some novel faCt which he has observed, we have no 
right to refuse him a hearing because no such fadts have been 
registered before. To take a very simple instance : it has been 
held, on the foundation of general experience, that none of the 
many species of lizards known to Science were capable of inflict - 
ing a venomous bite. Latterly, however, a species of lizard has 
been discovered in Mexico which possesses true grooved teeth 
and poison-glands, and whose bite proves deadly to small animals 
within a few minutes. Hence the induCtive conclusion that “ no 
animal having legs can instil poison by biting ” has been set aside 
as founded on too narrow a basis. In like manner a wider expe- 
rience may compel us to reconsider other inductions, and hence 
we should never dismiss the records of faCts on the mere ground 
of their unexpected nature. 
In the Report before us an abstract is given of Dr. Beard’s 
summary of the sources of error in experimenting upon living 
human subjects.* But the writers think that he has omitted one 
source of error more fatal than any other to a right interpretation 
of the faCts, namely, a strong prejudice against the possibility of 
the phenomena in question. They admit, however, that before 
a promiscuous company experiments of this kind are nearly sure 
to be vitiated by some of the sources of error which Dr. Beard 
has pointed out. These* objections scarcely apply to the observa- 
tions made by Prof. Barrett upon the Creery family. There was 
on these occasions often no person present who could, even if so 
disposed, have given any hint or indication as to the word or 
objeCt thought of. Often, too, no one save the experimentalist 
knew the name, the word, or the objeCt which he was thinking 
of, and which one of the daughters of the Rev. Mr. Creery, or 
his maid-servant, succeeded in guessing — if the word may be 
used. The failures, we think, will prove quite as instructive as 
the successes. Prof. Barrett writes that the first test was to 
name the hiding-place of some small objeCt chosen by himself. 
The children succeded in only one case out of four. The next 
demand was to give the name of some familiar objeCt agreed on 
in the child’s absence. Here there were six successes out of 
fourteen cases. Perhaps the hardest trial was to think of 
See Journal of Science for July, i88i* 
