s precisely the kind of
criticism which psychic research needs. After reading her account, I can
only say that were this case an isolated incident, unsupported by any
similar eases of a like nature, it would be so far "explained away" as
to lose all evidential value. At the same time I think that Count
Solovovo sums the whole argument up when he says that none of Home's
phenomena were ever _proved_ to be hallucinatory; all that has been done
by the discussion is to show that some of them _might possibly_ have
been so. And there is a great difference between the two. There is a
natural tendency in many minds to assume and take for granted that
because a given phenomenon might possibly have been produced by fraud,
it was unquestionably produced in that manner. That is quite an
unwarranted supposition, and fraud should be clearly _proved_ in every
given instance before a medium be charged with trickery. This is a rule
far too seldom observed by sceptical investigators, but an important one
nevertheless.

Leaving aside this particular case of Home's levitation, however, it may
be said that there are others on record far more conclusive in
character, and against which many of Miss Johnson's criticisms could
not be levelled. Taken singly, it is probable that no single case of any
class of phenomena would prove convincing to a sceptic; sufficient
objections could be raised, and sufficient discrepancies in the records
pointed out, to invalidate any evidence whatever. Quite apart from any
_a priori_ objections, any single incident can almost invariably be
"explained away." It is the weight of a great _mass_ of cumulative
evidence which tells the tale. The most expert and exact description of
the fall of a meteor would not have forced an acceptance from the
scientific world; the relative improbability of the whole of the past
experience of the human race would have been so much greater than the
fact that the latter would have been discredited. Gradually it would
have receded in the mind, and even the original witness might ultimately
be persuaded that he had not in reality seen a meteor at all!

And so it is with psychic research; and so it is with the theory under
discussion. No single incident, taken by itself, can be said to prove
anything; only the great mass of facts, taken together, and all pointing
in the same direction, can be said to do so. One can quite see how this
would be the case, e.g. in Mrs. Piper's automatic utt