or
Zollner, for example, says:

"Science can make no use of the substance of intellectual revelations,
but must be guided by observed facts and by the conclusions logically
and mathematically uniting them"--a passage which is quoted with
approval by Professor Reichel, and would seem to be endorsed by the
silence concerning the religious side of the question which is observed
by most of our great scientific supporters. It is a point of view
which can well be understood, and yet, closely examined, it would
appear to be a species of enlarged materialism. To admit, as these
observers do, that spirits do return, that they give every proof of
being the actual friends whom we have lost, and yet to turn a deaf ear
to the messages which they send would seem to be pushing caution to the
verge of unreason. To get so far, and yet not to go further, is
impossible as a permanent position. If, for example, in Raymond's case
we find so many allusions to the small details of his home upon earth,
which prove to be surprisingly correct, is it reasonable to put a blue
pencil through all he says of the home which he actually inhabits?
Long before I had convinced my mind of the truth of things which
appeared so grotesque and incredible, I had a long account sent by
table tilting about the conditions of life beyond. The details seemed
to me impossible and I set them aside, and yet they harmonise, as I now
discover, with other revelations. So, too, with the automatic script
of Mr. Hubert Wales, which has been described in my previous book. He
had tossed it aside into a drawer as being unworthy of serious
consideration, and yet it also proved to be in harmony. In neither of
these cases was telepathy or the prepossession of the medium a possible
explanation. On the whole, I am inclined to think that these doubtful
or dissentient scientific men, having their own weighty studies to
attend to, have confined their reading and thought to the more
objective side of the question, and are not aware of the vast amount of
concurrent evidence which appears to give us an exact picture of the
life beyond. They despise documents which cannot be proved, and they
do not, in my opinion, sufficiently realise that a general agreement of
testimony, and the already established character of a witness, are
themselves arguments for truth. Some complicate the question by
predicating the existence of a fourth dimension in that world, but the
term is an absurd