Skip to main content

Full text of "Rejoinder to Prof. Hyslop"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 

Discussion. 227 

gestion will rather take refuge in fraud as the best means of 
giving trouble in this problem. 

On the whole, I cannot complain of any desire by Prof. Leuba 
to do the Report an injustice. I am rather pleased with the 
general spirit that is shown toward such work, and I am not 
anxious to make proselytes. Every man must make up his own 
mind on the. problem and scientific psychologists cannot adopt 
the hypothesis which I have defended until much more has been 
accomplished in this perplexing field, and until they have the 
opportunity to come into direct personal contact with experi- 
mentation in it. But I will say that there will be little opportu- 
nity granted them as long as they publicly ridicule it. There are 
no doubt fakirs and silly performances have given the con- 
ception by which the average intelligent man and scientist has 
to judge of the subject, and the contempt with which this has to 
be met only make respectable people conceal genuine phe- 
nomena from the knowledge of scientific men. The only way 
to find facts which really require investigation is to exhibit the 
kind of tact and respect which the student of abnormal psychol- 
ogy has always to show in the treatment of pathological 
phenomena. When this is done, our psychologists will find it 
convenient to avoid public ridicule of the subject and they may 
actually discover some interesting facts right at home. 

James H. Hyslop. 
New York. 


I regret very much the erroneous statement of which Prof. 
Hyslop complains in Section 3 of his answer. I do not know 
how to account for it and I cannot now do better than offer an 

The recognition of the mistake just referred to does not, how- 
ever, modify my opinion that the first part of the volume gives a 
wrong impression, i. e., an impression much more favorable to 
the spiritistic hypothesis than the one derived from the complete 
records filling the second part of the book. I had simply stated 
my own observation and that of other persons. I have since 
then verified its correctness. But, as I had said no blame at- 
taches to Prof. Hyslop on that score. 

228 International Journal of Ethics. 

The other remarks of Prof. Hyslop are either without any 
force or bear upon points which affect in no way the position I 
have taken in the discussion. I beg the reader's indulgence for 
a word of comment upon the issues raised in the sections of his 
answers indicated by the numerals below. 

I and 2. If I have treated some of the incidents as if Prof. 
Hyslop assumed them to be evidences merely because they were 
true, the fault is probably as much with him as with me. It is 
not always easy to find out what evidential weight he ascribes to 
true incidents. He seems to me at times to vacillate from what 
might be termed an official attitude, quite skeptical, to a private 
one, more receptive. 

3 and 6. The requirements with which Prof. Hyslop would 
burden a reviewer are not to be endured. He need not suppose 
that, because no reason is adduced the writer has none to offer. 
If I called attention to the false incidents without discussing 
their compatibility with my hypothesis, and if I was content 
with merely stating that the supposition of an abnormal mental 
condition prevailing on the "other side" was a damning sup- 
position, it is because I was writing a critical review and not an 
exhaustive treatise. For the same reason, I could not sum- 
marize his discussion on this last point. I might, however, have 
referred the reader to the pages of the Report on which the dis- 
cussion is to be found. I have the same sufficient excuse to 
give for the omission of "Mistakes and Confusions" in mention- 
ing the main advantages of the spiritistic theory. The argu- 
ments I have mentioned (p. 102) are, in my opinion, and A I 
believe, in his own, the main advantages, as I was careful to say. 
Had I added "Mistakes and Confusions" wtihout explaining 
how they could be used to the advantage of the spiritistic hy- 
pothesis, my readers could not possibly have appreciated their 
value for Prof. Hyslop's thesis. 

4, 5 and 8. I had carefully read Appendix IV. I did not, 
however, find it either possible to discuss it or necessary to 
refer to it. I can reconcile my opinion with the facts brought 
out in that Appendix without being driven to the conclusion 
that the Columbia University students were insane; for, if there 
are many points of similarity between the experiments reported 
in Appendix IV and the alleged communications through Mrs. 
Piper, there are also many points of difference. 

Discussion. 229 

The failure on my part to discuss the value of confused inci- 
dents and of errors should not be called an evasion; it is the 
outcome of economy of space in a paper already too long. 

9. My remark upon the strong biassing influence of the feel- 
ings in the peculiar circumstances under which these experi- 
ments were carried on is no "ad populum argument." It is a 
sound psychological remark. Instead of recognizing its truth, 
Prof. Hyslop prefers to turn around and impute the same to the 
skeptic. That does not help his case. 

My sentence, "Let us rather listen to the conclusions of those 
who have only read and not witnessed," is not to be construed 
as an a priori condemnation of the scientific men who investi- 
gate and experiment for themselves. My meaning would have 
been better expressed as follows: "Let us rather listen to the 
conclusions of those who have been observers at the sittings, 
but not sitters themselves." This might have been gathered 
from the tone of the whole paper and particularly from my 
remark when, speaking of suggestion (p. 105), I made it clear 
that to my mind those best fitted to appraise the evidence were 
neither the sitters nor the outsiders, but those present at the 
sittings as investigating observers. 

10. I am still of opinion that the only meaning of -the word 
tokens allowed by the context is the one it has in the phrase 
"token of friendship." Let the readers go to the text and de- 
cide for themselves (pp. 397, 4")- I did not make Prof. Hys- 
lop say that it was a "wonderful incident." It is my own opin- 
ion that I was expressing when I said that his interpretation of 
the word token made, out of a common utterance, a wonderful 

I made Prof. Hyslop ascribe more weight to the second pas- 
sage I quoted than he actually did. He does, however, mention 
some of those incidents in the recapitulation (p. 88) and there he 
seems to give them a good deal of importance. 

James H. Leuba. 

Bryn Mawr College.