Abstract
THE following are a few of my grounds for questioning the scientific acumen of the psychical researchers:—(1) M. Richet's experiments are cited as if they were significant of telepathic action. On the contrary, they give odds of so little weight that they are significant of nothing but want of acumen. I have in card drawing, tossing and lottery experiments, all conducted with every precaution to secure a random distribution, obtained results against which the odds were more considerable. (2) Mr. Dixon is unable to see the importance of ascertaining whether there was an abnormal distribution in the cards cut or the cards guessed. His inability is a strong confirmation of my standpoint. (3) I have heard lectures, and read papers written by psychical researchers. Both alike seem to me akin to those products of circle squarers and paradoxers, with which, as a reviewer, I am painfully familiar. As a concrete example, I take my friend Dr. Oliver Lodge's psychical papers. They are typical, to my mind, of the manner in which the scientific acumen of even a professed and most highly competent man of science vanishes when he enters this field of “research.”
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
PEARSON, K. Peculiarities of Psychical Research. Nature 51, 200 (1894). https://doi.org/10.1038/051200b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/051200b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.