Re W. I. Bishop

Abstract

I CANNOT but feel greatly surprised that Mr. Romanes, when reporting the result of the investigations made by his colleagues and himself upon the power of “thought-reading” claimed by Mr. W. I. Bishop, should have stated that the letter of introduction which I gave to Mr. Bishop was “doubtless intended to recommend him to the attention of the credulous”, since this letter most distinctly expressed my desire to obtain for him “an assemblage of gentlemen specially qualified to appreciate the importance” of what I described in it as (in my judgment) “experiments of great value to the Physiologist and Psychologist”. Nor can I see how my having thus recommended “him to the attention of the scientific” is a thing “to be regretted”; since the careful testing of the one set of experiments which Mr. Bishop has shown to Mr. Romanes and his colleagues has resulted in a precise confirmation of my statement that the power of “thought-reading” which he claims is “derived from his careful study of the indications unconsciously given by the subjects of his experiments, and from his peculiar aptness in the interpretation of those indications”.