The sun., 1909-02-21
Science and the supernormal.

Professor SIMON NEwCoMB published
in the Nineteenth Century for January q
criticism Of the sayings and doings OF
the Society for Psychical Research, 10
which Sir OLIVER LODGE hastens to
reply in this months number. He
entities his answer The Attitude OF
Science Toward the Unusual" hut as
he complains, to Use his own words,
that Professor NEwcoAB denies the
existence Of any supernormal phenom-
ena whatever, '"the supernormal' would
perhaps be better name for the matter
at issue.
Professor NEwcoMBs standing as a
man of science and the bluntness of his
attack stimulate Sir OLIVER to do his
best in defence. He has written rather
long article, and perhaps the most
notable feature Of it is the very small
quantity OF statement OF fact which it
contains. Two or three times more
space is given 70 moralizing and verbal
tiisputation, which would have been su-
perfuous il there had been a fair num-
Der OF facts to give. However, one Of
his objects is to apologize for his de-
parture from orthodox science and the
matters OF fact recognized by it, We
cannot think that it is very successful
apology. He admits that "the subject
has the unfortunate knack OF attract
ing the attention Of cranks and weak
minded persons all over the world 'and
that il would be misfortune if the great
public should become believers in these
phenomena at present, since it would
mean the beginning OF a new era Of
superstition and the loss of much OF that
reign of fact which the nineteenth CEN
tury established. Yet he does not be-
lieve in holding back the truth when he
sees it. Such men as Professor NEW
COMB will be sure to contradict him, he
remarks, and so the general movement
will be balanced and regulated.
1t is an allowable and even a neces-
sary course for men Of science to push
likely hypothesis now and then to
extreme lengths to see what will come Of
it; but Sir OLIVER does not always
confne himself to purely speculative
attitude, He speaks sometimes of a
working hypothesis apd then uses
language only applicable to an estab-
lished fact or truth. The reserves
which he slips in here and there are
inconsistent with other parts Of his
discourse and are almost certainly lost
on the multitude. They impress us in
deed as half-hearted and little more
than formal very often. Otherwise
we should find it harder to reconcile
his indifference to the nicely Of "sus-
pended judgment" with his recogni-
ton of the dangerous consequences to
the public mind involved in the case.
This indifference has been especially
glaring in some OF his dealings with
that obvious danger point the inter-
course with departed spirits"
The facts which Sir OLIVER asserts
against Professor NEwcoMB are two
the first, that "telep athy or thought
transference otherwise than through
the organs OF sense has been proved
to take place. He does not give the
proofs, but refers TO the proceedings.
of the Society for Psychical Research.
That communication Of thought from
one person to another without the in
terventon Of seeing, hearing, smelling
or visible contact may occur within
certain rather marrow limits is often
alleged and by many admitted, but in
such evidence as is offered there is
nothing to upset the hypothesis that
the process has physical basis; for in
stance, that the molecular activity of
one nervous system may excite that Of
another by some transference of force
comparable to electricity. At bottom
this would be communication through
indirect contact, and not superior
NAL, as it would be il it had no pbysi-
cal basis. The distinction is of course