Apparitions and thought-transference: an examination of the evidence for telepathy. Frank Podmore

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ of successful, partially successful, misdescriptions, and failures. I endeavoured to work it out in what I thought a reasonable way, but I experienced much difficulty in assigning to its proper column each experiment we made. This, however, is a task which each student of the subject will be able to undertake for himself according to his own judgment. I do not submit my summary as a basis for calculation of probability. A few successful experiments of a certain kind carry greater weight with them than a large number of another kind; for some experiments are practically beyond the region of guesses. …

      "The following is a summary of the work done, classified to the best of my judgment:—

      FIRST SERIES.

Experiments and Conditions.	Total.	Nothing perceived.	Complete.	Partial.	Misdes- criptions.
Visual—Letters, figures, and cards— Contact	26	2	17	4	3
Visual—Letters, figures, and cards— Non-contact	16	0	9	2	5
Visual—Objects, colours, etc.—Contact	19	6	7	4	2
Do. do. Non-contact	38	4	28	6	0
Imagined visual—Non-contact	18	5	8	2	3
Imagined numbers and names—Contact and Non-contact	39	11	12	6	10
Pains—Contact	52	10	30	9	3
Tastes and smells—Contact	94	19	42	20	13
	302	57	153	53	39
Diagrams—Contact	37	7	18	6	6
Do. Non-contact	118	6	66	23	23
	457	70	237	82	68

      "There were also 40 diagrams for experimental evenings with strangers, in series of sixes and sevens, all misdrawn, and not fairly to be reckoned in the above.

      457 experiments under proper conditions.

       70 nothing perceived.

       ——

       387

      319 wholly or partially correct; 68 misdescriptions = 18 per cent."

      

      In the second series there were 123 trials; in 15 cases no impression was received, and in 35 cases, or 32 per cent of the remainder, an incorrect description was given. In the third series, of 133 trials there were 24 in which no impression was received and 40 failures: proportion of failures = 37 per cent. Mr. Guthrie attributes this gradual decline in the proportion of successes to the difficulty experienced by both agents and percipients in maintaining the original lively interest in the proceedings.

      No. 6.—By PROFESSOR LODGE, F.R.S.

      Subjoined is a detailed description of experiments made on two evenings in 1884, recorded by Professor Lodge,[22] which leaves no room for doubt that the impressions received in this instance by the percipient were of a visual nature. The agent on the first evening was Mr. James Birchall, who held the hand of the percipient, Miss R. The only other person present was Professor Lodge. The object was placed sometimes on a wooden screen between the percipient and the agent, at other times behind the percipient, whose eyes were bandaged. The bandage, it should be observed, was a sufficient precaution against cornea-reading; but for other purposes no reliance was placed upon it. It is believed that the precautions taken were in all cases adequate to conceal the object from the percipient if her eyes had been uncovered. In the account quoted any remarks made by the agent or Professor Lodge are entered between brackets.

      Object—a blue square of silk.—(Now, it's going to be a colour; ready.) "Is it green?" (No.) "It's something between green and blue. … Peacock." (What shape?) She drew a rhombus.

      [N.B.—It is not intended to imply that this was a success by any means, and it is to be understood that it was only to make a start on the first experiment that so much help was given as is involved in saying "it's a colour." When they are simply told "an object," or, what is much the same, when nothing is said at all, the field for guessing is practically infinite. When no remark at starting is recorded none was made, except such an one as "Now we are ready," by myself.]

      Next object—a key on a black ground.—(It's an object.) In a few seconds she said, "It's bright. … It looks like a key." Told to draw it, she drew it just inverted.

      Next object—three gold studs in morocco case.—"Is it yellow? … Something gold. … Something round. … A locket or a watch perhaps." (Do you see more than one round?) "Yes, there seem to be more than one. … Are there three rounds? … Three rings?" (What do they seem to be set in?) "Something bright like beads." [Evidently not understanding or attending to the question.] Told to unblindfold herself and draw, she drew the three rounds in a row quite correctly, and then sketched round them absently the outline of the case, which seemed therefore to have been apparent to her though she had not consciously attended to it. It was an interesting and striking experiment.

      Next object—a pair of scissors standing partly often with their points down.—"Is it a bright object? … Something long-ways [indicating verticality]. … A pair of scissors standing up. … A little bit open." Time, about a minute altogether. She then drew her impression, and it was correct in every particular. The object in this experiment was on a settee behind her, but its position had to be pointed out to her when, after the experiment, she wanted to see it.

      ORIGINAL.

      Next object—a drawing of a right-angled triangle on its side.—(It's a drawing.) She drew an isosceles triangle on its СКАЧАТЬ