g proof of the
correctness of your theory. But, far from studying the cases of
these gentlemen, some of you actually denounce, for doing so, the
Society for Psychical Research.'

The real explanation of these singular scientific inconsistencies is
probably this. Many men of science have, consciously or
unconsciously, adopted the belief that the whole subject of the
'abnormal,' or, let us say, the 'psychical,' is closed. Every
phenomenon admits of an already ascertained physical explanation.
Therefore, when a man (however apparently free from superstitious
prejudice) investigates a reported abnormal phenomenon, he is
instantly accused of _wanting to believe_ in a 'supernatural
explanation'. Wanting (ex hypothesi) to believe, he is unfit to
investigate, all his conclusions will be affirmative, and all will
be worthless.

This scientific argument is exactly the old argument of the pulpit
against the atheist who 'does not believe because he does not want
to believe'. The writer is only too well aware that even scientific
minds, when bent on these topics, are apt to lose balance and
sanity. But this tendency, like any other mental bad habit, is to
be overcome, and may be vanquished.

Manifestly it is as fair for a psychical researcher to say to Mr.
Clodd, 'You won't examine my haunted house because you are afraid of
being obliged to believe in spirits,' as it is fair for Mr. Clodd to
say to a psychical researcher, 'You only examine a haunted house
because you want to believe in spirits; and, therefore, if you _do_
see a spook, it does not count'.

We have recently seen an instructive example. Many continental
savants, some of them bred in the straitest sect of materialists,
examined, and were puzzled by an Italian female 'medium'. Effects
apparently abnormal were attested. In the autumn of 1895 this woman
was brought to England by the Society for Psychical Research. They,
of course, as they, ex hypothesi, 'wish to believe,' should, ex
hypothesi, have gone on believing. But, in fact, they detected the
medium in the act of cheating, and publicly denounced her as an
impostor. The argument, therefore, that investigation implies
credulity, and that credulity implies inevitable and final
deception, scarcely holds water.

One or two slight corrections may be offered here. The author
understands that Mr. Howitt does not regard the Australian conjurers
described on p. 41, as being actually _bound_ by the bark cor