Peculiarities of Psychical Research

Abstract

IN reply to Prof. Pearson: (1) His remark about “scientific acumen” was not made à propos of M. Richet's experiments, but of those of the S.P.R.; and hardly any stress is laid on M. Richet's results, either by Mr. Gurney or Mr. Podmore. Mr. Gurney, on the contrary, expressly says: “Clearly no definite conclusion could be based on such figures.” But if Prof. Pearson has made experiments which are equally striking in the opposite sense, I wish he would publish them, or communicate them to the S.P.R. (2) There was nothing in my letter to indicate that I under-estimated the importance of “abnormal distributions”; but I asked Prof. Pearson to say whether he had any reason to suppose such distributions might have occurred in the case in dispute. This he has failed to do—he has evaded the point. (3) Prof. Pearson descends to vague generalities except in regard to Dr. Oliver Lodge, who may be left to defend himself.