of a living 'nobleman of high
scientific attainments,' to his own experience.

In three pages Dr. Carpenter has shown that 'early scientific
training' in physiology and pathology, does not necessarily enable
its possessor to state a case fully. Nor does it prompt him to
discriminate between rumours coming, a hundred and fifty years after
the date of the alleged occurrences, from a remote, credulous, and
unscientific age: and the statements of witnesses all living, all
honourable, and, in one case, of 'high scientific attainments.'
{327}

It is this solemn belief in his own infallibility as a judge of
evidence combined with his almost incredible ignorance of what
evidence is, that makes Dr. Carpenter such an amusing
controversialist.

If any piece of fact is to be proved, it is plain that the
concurrent testimony of three living and honourable men is worth
more than a bit of gossip, which, after filtering through a century
or two, is reported by an early Christian Father. In matters wholly
marvellous, like Home's flight in the air, the evidence of three
living and honourable men need not, of course, convince us of the
fact. But this evidence is in itself a fact to be considered--'Why
do these gentlemen tell this tale?' we ask; but Dr. Carpenter puts
the testimony on the level of patristic tattle many centuries old,
written down, on no authority, long after the event. Yet the worthy
doctor calmly talks about 'want of scientific culture preventing
people from appreciating the force of scientific reasoning,' and
that after giving such examples of 'scientific reasoning' as we have
examined. {328} It is in this way that Science makes herself
disliked. By aid of ordinary intelligence, and of an ordinary
classical education, every one (however uncultivated in 'science')
can satisfy himself that Dr. Carpenter argued at random. Yet we do
not assert that 'early scientific training' _prevents_ people from
understanding the nature of evidence. Dr. Carpenter had the
training, but he was impetuous, and under a dominant idea, so he
blundered along.

Dr. Carpenter frequently invoked for the explanation of marvels, a
cause which is vera causa, expectancy. 'The expectation of a
certain result is often enough to produce it' (p. 12). This he
proves by cases of hypnotised patients who did, or suffered, what
they expected to be ordered to suffer or do, though no such order
was really given to them. Again (p. 40) he urges th