-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e399e94d3934df9d8ce5f8c0f24b557f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=kPBDVHaR6rIFvrOc6n5HsX5ZJBCvXHLARZTitdJ1eZOIttr-fs4P0ykLr8tna1gJOW%7EkGkMLhi3twIhS7xMO1oF3H0Gm-XM9vxPpfgvz10BmlVy3Rg-giS%7E4UILg7fsYMq1AkEW2YOtofcEyut1VkORrL6wvU36-GWWeXBoLaTSeOcSm3BN4qWHad7P4EYIEkZdYp3sYOlRrkypJuPDiKTPa9Ks7lIp4xA%7EO6BiCJ%7EMzTzJdPEuZzuxuThA%7EpseBoF2euzlnps7FZT4VPdEKcAYs6Yr7ogEI1LVpBgI7162%7E-cQq9vyb9SnCRc84qTRRhVfFu-G9XknGpPSmEKOYsg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3ff163dec6267cda905febc0a2fa04de
PDF Text
Text
694
[December
PSYCHOLOGICAL CURIOSITIES OF SCEPTICISM.
A Reply
to
Dr. Carpenter.
BY ALFRED R. WALLACE, F.R.S.
N the last number of this periodi had contented himself with jmcal, Dr. Carpenter has treated pugning my sanity or my sense on
his readers to a collection of what general grounds, I should not think
he terms ‘ Psychological Curiosities it worth while to write a word in
of Spiritualism.’ Throughout his reply. But when I find my facts
article he takes Mr. Crookes and distorted and my words perverted,
myself as typical examples of men I feel bound to defend myself, not
suffering under 1 an Epidemic Delu for the sake of my personal charae*
sion comparable to the Witchcraft ter, but in order to put a stop to
Epidemic of the seventeenth cen a mode of discussion which renders
tury,’ and he holds up our names all evidence unavailing and sets up
to wonder and scorn because, after unfounded and depreciatory asser
many years of inquiry, observation, tions in the place of fair argument.
and experiment, and after duly
I now ask my readers to allow
weighing all the doubts suggested me to put before them the other
and explanations proposed by Dr. side of this question, and I assure
Carpenter and others, we persist them that if they will read through
in accepting the uniform and con this article they will acknowledge
sistent testimony of our senses. Are that the strong language I have
we indeed 1 Psychological Curiosi used is fully justified by the facts
ties ’ because we rely upon what which I shall adduce.
philosophers assure us is our sole
Those who believe in the reality
and ultimate test of truth—percep of the abnormal phenomena whose
tion and reason ? And should we existence is denied by Dr. Carpen
be less rare and ‘ curious ’ pheno ter and his followers, have, for the
mena if, rejecting as worthless all most part, been convinced by what
our personally acquired knowledge, they have seen in private houses
we should blindly accept Dr. Car and among friends on whose cha
penter’s suggestions of what he racter they can rely. They con
thinks must have happened in stitute a not uninfluential body of
place of what we know did happen ? literary and scientific men, includ
If such is the judgment of the ing several Fellows of the Royal
world, we must for a time submit Society. The cases of public im
to the scorn and ridicule which posture (real or imaginary) Bo per
usually fall to the lot of unpopular sistently adduced by Dr. Carpenter,
minorities, but we look forward do not affect their belief, which is
with confidence to the advent of a altogether independent of public
higher class of critics than our pre exhibitions ; and they probably with
sent antagonist, critics who will not myself look upon the learned Doctar
condescend to a style of controversy (who tilts against facts as Don
so devoid of good taste and im Quixote did against windmills, and
partiality as that adopted by Dr. with equally prejudicial result® to
Carpenter.
himself) as a curious example of
It is with great reluctance that I fossilised scepticism. Thus, Serjeant
continue a discussion so purely per Cox, who often quotes Dr. Carpenter
sonal as this has become, but I have and is now quoted by him with
really no choice. If Dr. Carpenter approval, speaks of the learned
I
�187ZJ
Psychological Curiosities of Scepticism.
Doctor (in liis recent address to the
Psychological Society) as being
* enslaved and blinded’ by ‘prepos
session,’ adding:
There is not a more notable instance of
this than Dr. Carpenter himself, whose
emphatic warnings to beware of it are
doubtless the result of self-consciousness.
An apter illustration of this human "weak
ness there could not be. The characteristic
feature of his mind is prepossession. This
weakness is apparent in all his works. It
■ matters not what the subject, if once he
■has formed on opinion upon it, that opinion
SO prepossesses his whole mind that nothing
adverse to it can find admission there. It
affects alike his senses and his judgment.
I propose, therefore, as a com
panion picture to that of Messrs.
Crookes and Wallace the victims of
an Epidemic Delusion, to exhibit Dr.
Carpenter as an example of what
prepossession and blind scepticism
can do for a man. I shall show
•how it makes a scientific man un
scientific, a wise man foolish, an
honest man unjust. To refuse be
lief to unsupported rumours of
improbable events, is enlightened
Scepticism; to reject all second
hand or anonymous tales to the
injury or depreciation of anyone,
is charitable scepticism; to doubt
TOur own prepossessions when op
posed to facts observed and re
observed by honest and capable
men, is a noble scepticism. But
the scepticism of Dr. Carpenter is
695
none of these. It is a blind, un
reasoning, arrogant disbelief, that
marches on from youth to age with
its eyes shut to all that opposes its
own pet theories ; that believes its
own judgment to be infallible ; that
never acknowledges its errors. It
is a scepticism that clings to its re
futed theories, and refuses to ac
cept new truths.
Near the commencement of his
article Dr. Carpenter tells us that
he recurs to this subject as a duty
to the public and to assist in curing
a dangerous mental disease ; and
that he would gladly lay it aside for
the scientific investigations which
afford him the purest enjoyment.
But he also tells us that he honestly
believes that he possesses ‘ unusual
power of dealing with this subject; ’
and as Dr. Carpenter is not one
to hide the light of his ‘ unusual
powers ’ under a bushel, we may
infer that it is not pure duty
which has caused him, in addition
to writing long letters to Nature
and announcing a ‘ full answer ’ to
myself and Mr. Crookes in the
forthcoming new edition of his Lec
tures, to expend his valuable time
and energy on an article of forty
eight columns, founded mainly on
such a very shaky and wi-scientific
foundation as American newspaper
extracts and the unsupported state
ments of Mr. Home, the medium ;l
1 Mr. Home has always been treated by Dr. Carpenter as an impostor: yet now he
quotes him as an authority, although Mr. Home’s accusations against other mediums are
never authenticated in any way, and appear to be in many cases pure imagination. Dr.
Carpenter will no doubt now disclaim any imputation against Mr. Home, and pretend to
consider him only as the victim of delusion. But this is absurd. Tor does he not maintain
that Mr. Home was never ‘ levitated,’ although in several eases the fact was proved by
his name being found written in pencil on the ceiling, where it remained? This must
have been imposture if the levitation were not, as claimed, a reality. Do not the hands,
other than those of any persons present, which have often appeared at Mr. Home's seances
and have been visible and even tangible to all present, prove (in Dr. Carpenter’s opinion)
imposture? Do not the red-hot coals carried about the room in his hands prove chemical
preparation, and therefore imposture ? Is not the increase or decrease of the weight of
a table, as ascertained by a spring-balance, which I have myself witnessed in Mr. Home’s
presence, a trick, according to Dr. Carpenter? Is not the playing of the accordion in one
hand, or when both Mr. Home’s hands are on the table, a clever imposture in Dr. Car
penter’s opinion ? But if any one of these things is admitted to be, not an imposture,
but a reality, then the whole foundation of the learned but most illogical Doctor’s scep
ticism is undermined, and he practically admits himself a convert to the.facts of modern
spiritualism. But he does not admit this ; and as Mr. Home has carried on these alleged
�696
Psychological Curiosities of Scepticism.
while it is full of personal animosity
and the most unmeaning ridicule.
With extreme bad taste he com
pares a gentleman, who, as a scholar,
a thinker, and a writer, is Dr. Car
penter’s equal, to Moses and Son’s
kept poet; while with a pitiable in
appropriateness he parodies the fine
though hackneyed saying, ‘ See
how these Christians love one
another,’ in order to apply it satiri
cally to the case of a rather severe,
but not unfair, review of Mr. Home’s
book in a Spiritual periodical.
I will now proceed to show, not
only that my accusations in the
Quarterly Journal of Science for
July last—which in Dr. Carpenter’s
opinion amount to a charge of
‘ wilful and repeated suppressio veri ’
—are proved, but that a blind re
liance on Mr. Home and on ‘ ex
cerpts from American newspapers ’
have led him to make deliberate
statements which are totally un
founded.
I will first take a case which will
illustrate Dr. Carpenter’s wonderful
power of mis-statement as .regards
myself.
i. In a letter to the Daily News
written immediately after the de
livery of Dr. Carpenter’s first Lec
ture on Mesmerism at the London
Institution a year ago, I adduced a
case of mesmerism at a distance
recorded by the late Professor
Gregory. The lady mesmerised was
a relation of the Professor and was
staying in his own house.
The
[December
mesmeriser was a Mr. Lewis. The
sole authority for the facts referred
to by me was Professor Gregory
himself.
2. While criticising this Mr.
Lewis in his Lectures (page 24)
Dr. Carpenter says, referring to ay
Daily News letter, ‘His (Mr. Lewis’s)
utter failure to produce either
result, however, under the scrutiny
of sceptical inquirers, obviously dis.credits all his previous statements ;
except to such as (like Mr. A. R. Wal
lace, who has recently expressed his
full faith in Mr. Lewis's self-asserted
powers) are ready to accept without
question the slenderest evidence of
the greatest marvels.’ (The italics
are my own.)
3. In my ‘Review’ of Dr.
Carpenter’s book (Quarterly Jour
nal of Science, July 1877, page
394) I use strong (but, I submit*
appropriate) language as to this in
jurious and unfounded statement.
For Dr. Carpenter’s readers must
have understood, and must have
been intended to understand, that,
in sole reliance on this Mr. Lewis’s
own statements, I placed full faith
in them without any corroboration*
and had also publicly announced
this faith; in which case his readers
would have been justified in think
ing me a credulous fool not worth
listening to.
4. Writing again on this subject
(in last month’s issue of this Maga
zine, p. 545) Dr. Carpenter does
not apologise for the gross and in
impostures during his whole life, and has imbued thousands of persons with a belief in
their genuineness, Dr. Carpenter must inevitably believe Mr. Home to be the vilest of
impostors and utterly untrustworthy. Yet he quotes him as an authority, accepts as
true all the malicious stories retailed by this alleged impostor against rival impostors,
and believes every vague and entirely unsupported statement to a like effect in Mr.
Home’s last book! This from an ex-Professor of Medical Jurisprudence, who ought
to have some rudimentary notions of the value of evidence, is truly surprising. _ It
may be said that, although Dr. Carpenter thinks Home'an impostor, we believe in him,
and therefore ought to accept his evidence against other mediums. But this is a fallacy.
We believe that he is a medium, that is, a machine or organisation through whom certain
abnormal and marvellous phenomena occur; but this implies no belief in his integrity
or in his judgment, any more than the extraordinary phenomenon of double individuality
exhibited in°the case of the French sergeant (which formed the subject of such an
interesting article by Professor Huxley some time ago) implies that the sergeant was a
man of high moral character and superior judgment.
�-1877]
Psychological Cariosities 0/ Scepticism.
jnrious misrepresentation of what
I really said, neither does he justify
it by reference to anything else I
may have written; but lie covers
his retreat with a fresh suggestio
falsi, and ridicules me for using
such strong language (which he
quotes) merely (he says) because he
had reflected on my ‘ too ready
acceptance of the slenderest evi
dence of the greatest marvels’-—a
phrase of Dr. Carpenter’s which I
never objected to at all because it
was a mere expression of opinion,
while what I did object to was a
mis-statement of a matter of fact.
This is Dr. Carpenter’s idea of the
way to carry on that ‘ calm discus
sion with other men of science ’ to
the absence of which he imputes
,®.ll my errors. (Note A, p. 705.)
Dr. Carpenter is so prepossessed
with the dominant idea of putting
down Spiritualism, that it seems
impossible for him to state the sim
plest fact in regard to it without
introducing some purely imaginary
fact of his own to make it fit his
theory. Thus, in his article on
‘ The Fallacies of Testimony ’ (Con
temporary Review, 1876, P- 286)
he says : ‘ A whole party of believers
will affirm that they saw Mr. Home
float out of one window and in at
another, whilst a single honest
sceptic declares that Mr. Home was
sitting in his chair all the time.'
Now there is only one case on record
of Mr. Home having ‘ floated out of
one window and in at another.’
Two of the persons present on the
occasion—Lord Adare and Lord
Lindsay—have made public their
account of it, and the third has never
declared that Mr. Home was ‘ sitting
in his chair all the time,’ but has
privately confirmed, to the extent
his position enabled him to do so,
the testimony of the other two. Is
this another case of Dr. Carpenter
‘ cerebrating ’ his facts to suit his
theory, or will he say it is a purely
hypothetical case ? Yet this can
hardly be, for he goes on to argue
697
from it: ‘ And in this last case we
have an example of o>fact, of which
&c. &c.’ I ask Dr. Carpenter to
name the 4 honest sceptic ’ of this
quotation and to give us his precise
statement; or, failing this, to ac
knowledge that he has imagined
a piece of evidence to suit his
hypothesis. (Note B, p. 706.)
It is only fair that he should
do this because, in another of his
numerous raids upon the poor
deluded spiritualists, he has made
a direct and, as it seems to me,
completely unsupported charge
against Lord Lindsay. In his
article on ‘ Spiritualism and its
recent Converts ’ ( Quarterly Review,
1871, pp. 335, 336) Dr. Carpenter
quotes Lord Lindsay’s account of an
experiment with Mr. Home, in which
Lord Lindsay placed a powerful
magnet in one corner of a totally
dark room, and then brought in the
medium, who after a few moments
said he saw a sort of light on the
floor; and to prove it led Lord
Lindsay straight to the spot and
placed his hand upon the magnet.
The experiment was not very re
markable, but still, so far as it went,
it confirmed the observations of
Reichenbach and others. This Dr.
Carpenter cannot bear ; so he not
only proceeds to point out Lord
Lindsay’s complete ignorance of
the whole subject but makes him
morally culpable for not having
used Dr. Carpenter’s pet test of an
electro-magnet; and he concludes,
thus: ‘ If, then, Lord Lindsay cannot
be trusted as a “ faithful ” witness
in “ that which is least,” how can
we feel assured that he is “ faithful
also in much ” ? ’ By what mental
jugglery Dr. Carpenter can haveconvinced himself that he had shown
that Lord Lindsay ‘ cannot betrusted as a faithful witness,’ I am
at a loss to understand. But theanimus against the friend of and
believer in Mr. Home, is palpable.
Now that Lord Lindsay has achieved
a scientific reputation, we presume-
�698
Psychological Curiosities of Scepticism.
there must be two Lord Lind
says as well as two Mr. Crookes’:
one the enthusiastic astronomer and
careful observer, the other the
deluded spiritualist and ‘ psycho
logical curiosity.’ As these double
people increase it will become rather
puzzling, and we shall have to adopt
Mr. Crookes’ prefixes of ‘ Ortho ’
and ‘ Pseudo ’ to know which we
are talking about.2 It will be well
also to note the Scriptural language
employed by Dr. Carpenter in
making this solemn and ridiculously
unfounded charge. It reminds one
of the ‘ I speak advisedly ’ (in the
celebrated Quarterly Review article
now acknowledged by Dr. Carpen
ter) which Mr. Crookes has shown
to be in every case the prefix of a
wholly incorrect statement.3
Dr. Carpenter heads a section of
his article in last month’s issue of
this periodical, ‘ What Mr. Wallace
means by Demonstration; ’ and en
deavours to show that I have mis
applied the term when I stated
that in certain cases flowers had
appeared at seances ‘ demonstrably
not brought by the medium.’ His
long quotations from Mr. Home,
giving purely imaginary and bur
lesque accounts of such seances,
totally unauthenticated by names
or dates, may be set aside as not
only irrelevant but as insulting to
the readers who are asked to accept
them as evidence. Dr. Carpenter
begins by confounding the proof of
a, fact and that of a proposition, and,
against the view of the best modern
philosophers, maintains that the
latter alone can be truly said to be
‘ demonstrated.’ But this is a com
plete fallacy. The direct testimony
of the educated senses guided by
reason, is of higher validity than
any complex result of reason alone.
If I am sitting with two friends
and a servant brings me a letter, I
[December
am justified in saying that that
letter was ‘ demonstrably not brought
by one of my friends.’ Or if a
bullet comes through the window
and strikes the wall behind me, I
am justified in saying that one of
my two friends sitting at the table
‘ demonstrably did not fire the
pistol; ’-—always supposing that I
am proved to be in the full posses
sion of my ordinary senses by the
general agreement of my friends
with me as to what happened. Of
course if I am in a state of delusion
or insanity, and my senses and
reasoning powers do not record
events in agreement with others
who witness them, neither shall I
be able to perceive the force of a
mathematical demonstration. If
my senses play me false, squares
may seem to me triangles and
circles ellipses, and no geometrical
reasoning will be possible. Dr.
Carpenter next asserts that I ‘com
plain ’ of his ‘ not accepting the
flowers and fruits produced in my
own drawing-room and those which
made their appearance in the house
of Mr. T. A. Trollope at Florence.’
This is simply not the case. I never
asked him to accept them or com
plained of his not accepting them;
but I pointed out that he did ac.
cept the evidence of a prejudiced
witness to support a theory of im
posture which was entirely nega
tived in the two cases I referred
to.4 I implied, that he should
either leave the subject alone or
deal with the lest evidence of the
alleged facts. To do otherwise was
not ‘ scientific,’ and to put anony
mous and unsupported evidence
before the public as conclusive of
the whole question was both un
scientific and disingenuous. Now
that he does attempt to deal with
these cases, he makes them explic
able on his own theory of imposture
3 See Nature, Nov. I, 1877, p. 8.
,
» Quarterly Journal of Science, January 1872 : ‘A Reply to the Quarterly heview.
4 See Quarterly Journal of Science, July 1877, pp. 410-412.
�1877]
Psychological Curiosities of Scepticism,
■only by leaving ont the most essen
tial facts.
He first says that ‘ in Mr. Wal
lace’s own case no precautions
whatever had been employed ! ’ and
he introduces this with the remark,
’Now it will scarcely be believed,’
to which I will add that it must
not be believed, because it is un
true. I have never published a
detailed account of this seance, but
I have stated the main facts with
sufficient care5 to show that the
phenomenon itself was a test sur
passing anything that could have
been prearranged. The general
precautions used by me were as
follows : Five personal friends were
present besides myself and the
medium, among them a medical
man, a barrister, and an acute co
lonial man of business. The sitting
was in my own back drawing
room. No cloth was on the table.
The adjoining room and passage
were fully lighted. We sat an
hour in the darkened room before
the flowers appeared, but there was
always light enough to see the out
lines of those present. We sat a
little away from the table, the me
dium sitting by me. The flowers
appeared on the polished table
dimly visible as a something, before
we lighted the gas. When we did so
the whole surface of the four-feet cir
cular table was covered with fresh
flowers and ferns, a sight so beautiful
and marvellous, that in the course
of a not uneventful life I can
hardly recall anything that has more
strongly impressed me. I begged
that nothing might be'touched till
we had carefully examined them.
The first thing that struck us all
was their extreme freshness and
beauty. The next, that they were
all covered, especially the ferns,
with a delicate dew ; not with coarse
drops of water as I have since seen
when the phenomenon was less per
fect, but with a veritable fine dew,
699
covering the whole surface of the
ferns especially. Counting the se
parate sprigs we found them to
be forty-eight in number, consisting
of four yellow and red tulips, eight
large anemones of various colours,
six large flowers of Primula japonica,
eighteen chrysanthemums mostly
yellow and white, six fronds of
Lomaria a foot long, and two of a
Nephrodium about a foot long and
six inches wide. Not a pinnule of
these ferns was rumpled, but they
lay on the table as perfect as if
freshly brought from a conserva
tory. The anemones, primroses,
and tulips had none of them lost a
petal. They were found spread
over the whole surface of the table,
while we had been for some time
intently gazing on the sheen of its
surface and could have instantly
detected a hand and arm . moving
over it. But that is not so important
as the condition of these flowers and
their dewiness; and—Dr. Carpenter
notwithstanding—I still maintain
they were (to us) ‘ demonstrably
not brought by the medium.’ I
have preserved the flowers and have
them now before me, with the at
testation of all present as to their
appearance and condition; and I
have also my original notes made at
the time. How simple is Dr. Car
penter’s notion that I tell this story,
after ten years, from memory! How
ingenious is his suggestion of the
lining of a cloak as their place of
concealment for four hours—a sug
gestion taken from a second-hand
story by Mr. Home about a paid
medium, and therefore not the lady
whose powers are now under dis
cussion ! How utterly beside the
question his subsequent remarks
about conjurors, and hats, and the
mango-trees produced by Indian
jugglers !
In the case certified by Mr. T. A.
Trollope the medium’s person (not
her dress only, as Dr. Carpenter*
5 Miracles and Modern Spiritualism, p. 164.
�700
Psychological Curiosities of Scepticism*
says) was carefully searched before
sitting down ; but now it is objected
that ‘ an experiencedfemale searcher’
would have been more satisfactory,
and the fact is ignored that pheno
mena occurred which precluded the
necessity of any search. For while
the medium’s hands were both held
a large quantity of jonquils fell on
the table, ‘filling the whole room
with their odour.’ If Dr. Carpenter
can get over the ‘ sudden falling on
the table ’ of the flowers while the
medium’s hands were held, how
does he explain the withholding of
the powerful odour ‘ filling the whole
room ’ till the moment of their ap
pearance ? Mr. Trollope says that
this is, ‘on any common theory of
physics, unaccountable,’ and I say
that this large quantity of power
fully smelling jonquils was ‘ de
monstrably not brought by the
medium.’ I have notes of other
cases equally well attested. In one
of these at a friend’s house to which
I myself took Miss Nicholl, eighty
separate stalks of flowers and ferns
fell on the table while the medium’s
hands were both held. All were
perfectly fresh and damp, and some
large sprays of maiden-hair fern
were quite perfect. On another
occasion I was present when twenty
different kinds of fruits were asked
for, and every person had their
chosen kind placed before them on
the table or put at once into
their hands by some invisible
agency. These cases might be mul
tiplied indefinitely, and many are
recorded which are still more com
pletely beyond the power of impos
ture to explain. But all such are
passed over by Dr. Carpenter in
silence. He asks for better evidence
of certain facts, and when we ad
duce it he says we are the victims
of a ‘diluted insanity.’6 In the
supposed Belfast exposure by means
of potassium ferrocyanide, I ob
jected that the only evidence was
[December
that of a prejudiced witness with a
strong animus against the medium.
Dr. Carpenter now prints this
young man’s letter (of which he
had in his lecture given the sub
stance) and thinks that he has
transformed his one witness into
two by means of an anony
mous ‘ friend ’ therein mentioned.
He talks of the ‘ immediate de
tection of the salt by one witness
and the subsequent confirmatory
testimony of the other '—this ‘ other*
being the anonymous friend of the
‘ one witness ’ letter! Unfortu
nately this ‘ friend ’ wrote a letter
to the papers in which he brought
an additional accusation, which I
have proved, by the testimony of
an unimpeachable witness, to be
utterly unfounded. (See Quarterly)
Journal of Science, July 1877, p.
411.) We may therefore dismiss
the ‘ exposure ’ as, to say the least,
not proven.
Dr. Carpenter heads one of his
sections, ‘ What Messrs. Wallace
and Crookes regard as “ Trust
worthy Testimony ’ and before I
remark on its contents, I wish to
point out the literary impropriety
of which Dr. Carpentei' is guilty, in
thus making Mr. Crookes respon
sible for the whole contents of my
article in the Quarterly Journal of
Science because he happens to be
the editor of that periodical. I
might with equal justice charge
upon the editor of Fraser all the
mis-statements and injurious per
sonal imputations which Dr. Car
penter has introduced into an
article, accepted, doubtless, without
question on the strength of his
high scientific standing.
Under the above heading Dr.
Carpenter attempts to show that
Colonel Olcott (whose investigation
into the character of Mrs. White
and her false declaration that she
had, on certain occasions, personated
‘ Katie King,’ I quoted in my re
4 Dr. Carpenter’s Mental Physiology, 2nd edit. p. 362.
�1877]
Psychological Curiosities of Scepticism.
view) is an untrustworthy witness;
and his sole proof consists in a
quotation from a published letter of
the Colonel’s about bringing an
‘ African sorcerer ’ to America.
This letter may or may not be in
judicious or foolish; that is matter
of opinion. But how it in any way
‘ blackens ’ Colonel Olcott’s cha
racter or proves him to be I un
4
*
trustworthy ’ as a witness to
matters of fact, it must puzzle
everyone but a Carpenter or a
Home to understand.
The next example I shall give
of Dr. Carpenter’s ‘unusual power
of dealing with this subject,’ is a
most injurious mis-statement re
ferring to my friend Mr. Crookes.
Dr. Carpenter heads a section of
more than eight columns, ‘ Mr.
Crookes and his Scientific Tests,’
and devotes it to an account of Eva
Fay’s performances, of Mr. Crookes’
1 inconsiderate endorsement of one
of the grossest impostures ever
practised,’ and of the alleged ex
posure of the fraud by Mr. W.
Irvine Bishop. The following quo
tation contains the essence of the
charge, and I invite particular
attention to its wording :
. . . her London audiences diminish
ing away, Eva Fay returned to the United
States, carrying with her a letter from Mr.
Crookes, which set forth that since doubts
had been thrown on the spiritualistic nature
of her ‘manifestations,’ aud since he, in
common with other Fellows of the Royal
Society, had'satisfied themselves of their
genuineness by ‘ scientific tests,’ he will
ingly gave her the benefit of his attesta
tion. This letter was published in fac
simile in American newspapers.
I can scarcely expect my readers
at once to credit what I now have
to state ; that, notwithstanding the
above precise setting forth of its
■Contents, by a man who professes
to write under a sense of duty, and
as one called upon to rehabilitate
the injured dignity of British
Science, such a letter as that above
minutely described never existed at
701
all! A private letter from Mr.
Crookes has indeed, without his
consent, been published in fac
simile in American newspapers ;
but this letter was never in the pos
session of Eva Fay; it was not
written till months after she had
left England, and then not to her,
but in answer to inquiries by a
perfect stranger; moreover it con
tains not a word in any way re
sembling the passages above given!
Sad to say, Dr. Carpenter’s kind
Boston friends do not appear to
have sent him a copy of the paper
containing the facsimile letter, or
he would have seen that Mr.
Crookes says nothing of ‘ the spi
ritualistic nature of her mani
festations ; ’ he does wof mention
‘ other Fellows of the Royal So
ciety ; ’ he does not say he was
‘ satisfied of the genuineness of the
scientific tests,’ but especially
guards himself by saying that the
published account of the experi
ments made at his own house are
the best evidence of his belief in
her powers. He does not ‘ give her
the benefit of his attestation,’ but
simply says that no one has any
authority to use his name to injure
her.
The number of the New York
Daily Graphic for April 12, 1876,
containing the letter in facsimile
is now before me. An exact copy
of it is given below, and I ask
my readers to peruse it carefully,
to compare it with Dr. Carpen
ter’s precise summary given as
if from actual inspection, and then
decide by whose instrumentality
the honoured distinction of F.R.S.
is being ‘ trailed through the dirt,’
and who best upholds his own repu
tation and that of British Science.
Is it the man who writes a straight
forward letter in order to prevent
his name being used to injure
another, and who states only facts
within his own personal knowledge ;
or is it he who, for the express
�702
Psychological Curiosities of Scepticism.
[December
purpose of depreciating 7 the well- her in private and tested her them
earned reputation of a fellow man selves ; and without this their
of science, publishes without a word evidence is absolutely worthless.
of caution or hesitation a purely Mr. Crookes has said nothing, good
or bad, about her public per
imaginary account of it ?
formances ; but she came alone to
Mr. crookes’ ‘fac-simile’ letter.
his own house, and there, aided
Nov. 8, 1875.
by scientific friends, in his own
To R. Cooper, Esq.
laboratory, he tested her by placing
c/o C. Maynard, Esq.
223 Washington Street,
her in an electrical circuit from
Boston, Mass. U.S.A.
which she could not possibly escape
Dear Sir,
or even attempt to escape without
In reply to your' avour of Oct. 25,
Yet when in
which I have received this morning, I beg instant discovery.
to state that no one has any authority from this position books were taken from
me to state that I have any doubts of Mrs. the bookcase twelve feet away and
Fay’s mediumship. The published accounts handed out to the observers. The
of the test seances which took place at my beautiful arrangements by which
house are the best evidence which I can
give of my belief in Mrs. Fay’s powers. I these tests were carried out are
should, be sorry to find that any such detailed by Mr. Crookes in the
rumours as you mention should injure Mrs. Spiritualist newspaper of March
Fay, whom i have always found most ready 12, 1875, and should be read by
to submit to any conditions I thought fit to everyone who wishes to understand
propose. Believe me, very truly yours,
William Crookes. the real difference between the
methods of procedure of Mr.
Notwithstanding this attack, all Crookes and Dr. Carpenter. Not
the evidence Dr. Carpenter can one word is said, either by Dr.
adduce as to the alleged expo Carpenter’s correspondents or by
sure of Eva Eay has really no the Daily Graphic, as to this test
bearing whatever on Mr. Crookes’ having been applied to Mr. Bishop
position. Long and wordy letters by an electrical engineer or other
are given verbatim which only expert, and till this is done how
amount to this : that the writers can Mr. Crookes’ position be in any
saw a clever conjuror do what they way affected ? A public perform
thought was an exact imitation of ance in Boston, parodying that of
Eva Fay’s performances and of Miss Fay, but without one particle
those of mediums generally. But a of proof that the conditions of the
most essential point is omitted. two performances were really iden
Neither of the three writers say tical,8 is to Dr. Carpenter’s logical
f/zey ever saw Eva Fay’s performance. and sceptical mind a satisfactory
Still less do they say they ever saw proof that one of the first experi
’ ‘In the United States more especially . . . the names of the “eminent British
scientists,” Messrs. Crookes and Wallace, are a “tower of strength.” And it consequently
becomes necessary for me to undermine that tower by showing that in their investigation
of this subject they have followed methods that are thoroughly unscientific, and have
been led, by their “ prepossession,” to accept with implicit faith a number of statements
which ought to be rejected as completely untrustworthy.’—Fraser's Magazine, November
s?The account in the New York Daily Graphic almost proves that they were not. For
the clever woodcuts showing Mr. Bishop during his performances indicate an amount of
stretching of the cord which certainly could be at once detected on after examination,
especially if the knots had been sealed or bound with court-plaster. . Yet more; accord
ing to these illustrations, it would be impossible for Mr. Bishop to imitate Eva Fay. in
* tying a strip of cloth round her neck’ and ‘ putting a ring into her ear,’ both of which
are specially mentioned as having been done by her. It may well be supposed that the
audience, .delighted at an ‘exposure,’ would not be quite so severely critical as they are
to those who claim to possess abnormal powers.
�1877]
Psychological Curiosities of Scepticism.
mentors of the day was imposed on in
his own laboratory, when assisted by
trained experts, and when applying
the most absolute tests that science
can supply.9 (Note C, p. 706.)
I have now shown to the readers
of Fraser (as I had previously
shown in the Quarterly Journal of
Science') that whatever Dr. Carpen
ter writes on this subject, whether
opinion, argument, quotation, or
fact, is so distorted by prejudice as
to be untrustworthy. It is there
fore unnecessary here to reply in
detail to the mass of innuendo and
assumption that everywhere per
vades his article; neither am I
called upon to notice all the alleged
‘ exposures ’ which he delights in
placing before his readers. To
‘ expose ’ malingerers and cases of
feigned illness doesnot disprove the
existence of disease; and if, as I
believe has been demonstrated, the
phenomena here discussed are mar
vellous realities, it is to be expected
that there will be impostors to
imitate them, and no lack of credu
lous persons to be duped by those
impostors. But it is not the part
of an honest searcher after truth to
put forward these detected impos
tures while ignoring- the actual
phenomena which the impostors try
to imitate. When we have Dr.
Carpenter’s final word in the pro
mised new edition of his Lectures,
I shall be prepared to show that
tests far more severe than such as
have resulted in the detection of
imposture have been over and over
again applied to the genuine phe
nomena with no other result than
to confirm their genuineness.
703
This is not the place to discuss
the reality of the phenomena which
Dr. Carpenter rejects with so much
misplaced indignation, and endea
vours to put down by such ques
tionable means. The careful ob
servations of such men as Professor
Barrett of Dublin, and the elaborate
series of test experiments carried
out in his own laboratory by Mr.
Crookes,10 are sufficient to satisfy
any unprejudiced person that the
phenomena are genuine ; and if so,
whatever theory we may adopt con
cerning them, they must greatly
influence all our fundamental ideas
in science and philosophy. The
attempt to excite prejudice against
all who have become convinced that
these things are real, by vague ac
cusations, and by quoting all the
trash that can be picked out of the
literature of the subject, is utterly
unworthy of the men of science
who adopt it. For nearly thirty
years this plan has been unsparing
ly pursued, and its failure has been
complete. Belief in the genuine
ness of the phenomena has grown
steadily year by year; and at this
day there are, to my personal know
ledge, a larger number of welleducated and intelligent and even
of scientific men who profess their
belief, than at any former period.
There is no greater mistake than
to suppose that this body of in
quirers have obtained their present
convictions by what they have seen
at public seances only. In almost
every case those convictions are the
result of a long series of experi
ments in private houses ; and it
would amaze Dr. Carpenter to
9 As Imrdlv any of my readers will have seen the full account of these tests, and as
the whole is too long for insertion here. I give a pretty full abstract of all the essential
portions of it in an Appendix to this paper. This is rendered necessary because Dr.
Carpenter declares that he is going to give, in the new edition of his Lectures, ‘the
whole explanation’ of the 1 dodge’ by which these ‘ scientific tests’ could be evaded—‘a
dodge so simple that Mr. Crookes’ highly-trained scientific acumen could not detect it.’
These are Dr. Carpenter’s own words in his article last month (p. 553), and it is necessary
that he should be called on to make them good by really explaining Mr. Crookes’ actual
experiments, and not some other experiments which ‘American newspapers’ may substi
tute for them.
10 Quarterly Journal of Science, Oct. 1871 and Jan. 1874.
�704
Psychological Curiosities of Scepticism.
learn the number of families in
every class of society in which even
the more marvellous and indis
putable of these phenomena occur.
The course taken by Dr. Carpenter
of discrediting evidence, depre
ciating character, and retailing
scandal, only confirms these people
in their belief that men of science
are powerless in face of this great
subject; and I feel sure that all he
has written has never converted a
single earnest investigator.
It is well worthy of notice, as
correlating this inquiry with other
branches of science, that there is no
royal road to acquiring a competent
knowledge of these phenomena,
and this is the reason why so many
scientific men fail to obtain evi
dence of anything important.
They think that a few hours should
enable them to decide the whole
thing; as if a problem which has
been ever before the world, and
which for the last quarter of a
century has attracted the attention
of thousands, only required their
piercing glance to probe it to the
bottom. But those who have de
voted most time and study to the
subject, though they become ever
more convinced of the reality, the
importance, and the endless phases
of the phenomena, find themselves
less able to dogmatise as to their
exact nature or theoretical inter
pretation. Of one thing, however,
they feel convinced; that all further
discussion on the inner nature of
man and his relation to the uni
verse is a mere beating of the air
so long as these marvellous phe
nomena, opening up as they do a
whole world of new interactions
between mind and matter, are dis
regarded and ignored.
APPENDIX.
Abstract of Mr. Crookes' Experiments above
referred, to.
The apparatus used consisted of an
electrical circuit with a reflecting galvano
meter showing the slightest variations
[December
in the current, designed and arranged by
one of the most eminent practical elec
tricians. This instrument was fixed in
Mr. Crookes’ laboratory, from which two
stout wires passed through the wall into
the library adjoining, and there terminated
in two brass handles fixed at a considerable
distance apart, and having only an inch or
two of play. These handles are covered
with linen soaked in salt and water, and
when the person to be experimented on
holds these handles in the hands (also first
soaked in salt and water) the current of
electricity passes through his or her body,
and the exact ‘ electrical resistance’ can be
measured; while the reflecting galvano
meter renders visible to all the spectators
the slightest variation in the resistance.
This instrument is so delicate that the
mere loosening of the grasp of one or both
hands or the lifting of a finger from the
handle would be shown at once, because by
altering the amount of surface in con
tact the ‘ electrical resistance ’ would be
instantly changed. Two experienced phy
sicists, both Fellows of the Royal Society,
made experiments with this instrument for
more than an hour before the tests began,
and satisfied themselves that, even with an
exact knowledge of what was required and
with any amount of preparation, they
could not substitute anything connecting
the two handles and having the same exact
resistance as the human body without a
long course of trial and failure, and without
a person in the other room to tell them if
more or less resistance were required,
during which time the index spot of light
of the galvanometer was flying wildly
about. Comparative steadiness of the
index could only be secured by a steady
and continuous grasp of the two handles.
Having thus described the apparatus,
let us now consider how the test was
carried out. The gentlemen invited to
witness it were three Fellows of the Royal
Society, all of special eminence, and three
other gentlemen. They examined the
library; fastened up the door to the
passage as well as the window with strips
of paper sealed with their private seals ;
they examined all the cupboards and
desks ; they noted the position of various
articles, and measured their distances as
well as that of the bookcase from the
handles to be held by the medium. The
library was connected with the laboratory
by a door close to where the medium sat,
and this door was wide open, but the
aperture was closed by means of a curtain.
Everything having been thus arranged,
Eva Fay was invited to enter the library,
having up to this time been in the drawing
room upstairs, and having come to the
house alone. She then seated herself in a
�I®
) •'
Sr
1877]
Psychological Curiosities of Scepticism.
chair placed for the purpose, and having
moistened her hands as directed took hold
of the two handles. The exact ‘electrical
resistance’ of her body was then noted, as
well as the deflection >hown by the gal
vanometer : and the gas in the library
having been turned down low, the gentle
men took their places in the laboratory,
leaving Eva Fay alone.
In one minute a hand-bell was rung in
the library. In two minutes a hand came
out at the side of the door farthest from
the medium. During the succeeding five
minutes four separate books were handed
out to their respective authors, a voice from
the library calling them by name. These
hooks had been taken from the bookcase
twelve feet from Eva Fay: they had been
found in the dark, and one of them had no
lettering on the back. Mr. Crookes de
clares that although he, of course, knew
the general position of the books in his
own library, he could not have found these
books in the dark. Then a box of cigars
was thrown out to a gentleman very fond
of smoking, and finally an ornamental
clock which had been standing on the
chimney-piece was handed out. Then the
circuit was suddenly broken, and on in
705
stantly entering the library Eva Fay was
found lying back in the chair senseless, a
condition in which she remained for half
an hour. All the above phenomena oc
curred during the space of ten minutes,
and the reflecting galvanometer was steady
the whole time, showing only those small
variations which would occur while a
person continued to hold the handles.
On two other occasions Mr. Crookes
carried out similar tests with the same
medium and always with the same
result. On one occasion several musical
instruments were played on at the same
time and a musical box was wound
up while the luminous index of the gal
vanometer continued quite steady, and
many articles were handed or thrown
out into the laboratory. On the other
occasion similar things happened, after
all possible precautions had been taken ;
and in addition Mr. Crookes’ desk, which
was carefully locked before the seance,
was found unlocked and open at its conclu
sion.
Everyone must look forward with great
interest to Dr. Carpenter’s promised ‘ex
planation ’ of how all these scientific tests
were evaded by an unscientific impostor.
Note A.—Since this article was in the printer’s hands a proof-sheet of the new edition
of Dr. Carpenter’s Lectures has been forwarded to me at the author’s request, in order that I
may see what further explanations he has to give of the above case. Dr. Carpenter now
attempts to justify his assertion that I had ‘ recently expressed my full faith in Mr.
Lewis’ self-asserted powers,’ by a statement of what Dr. Simpson told him several years
ago, a statement which appears to have been never yet made public, and which, there
fore, could not possibly have been taken into account by me, even had it any real bearing
on the question at issue. It is to the effect that Mr. Lewis might have received informa
tion of the exact hour at which the lady he had promised to try to mesmerise at a dis
tance, fell asleep in Professor Gregory’s house, and that he might have afterwards given a
false statement of the hour at which he attempted to mesmerise her. Dr. Carpenter is
excessively indignant when any doubt is thrown by me on the truthfulness or impar
tiality of any of his informants, but it seems the most natural thing in the world for him
to charge falsehood or fraud against all who testify to facts which he thinks incredible.
But even admitting that Dr. Carpenter’s memory of what was told him many years
ago is absolutely perfect, and admitting that Mr. Lewis (against whose moral character
nothing whatever is adduced) would have told a direct falsehood in order to magnify his
own powers, how does this account for the fact that the lady was overcome by the mes
meric sleep at all, when her mind and body were both actively engaged at the piano early
in the afternoon? And how does it account for the headache which had troubled her
the whole day suddenly ceasing ? It is not attempted to be shown that Mr. Lewis’ state
ment—that he returned home at the hour named and at once proceeded to try and
;
iasgEl mesmerise the lady—is not true •. so that, except for the supposed incredibility of the
iojist | whole thing in Dr. Carpenter’s opinion, there would be no reason to doubt the exact
correctness of the statements made. But even if the reader adopts the view that Mr.
Lewis was really an impostor, that does not make Dr. Carpenter’s original assertion—
that I had ‘expressed’ my full faith in his ‘self-asserted powers’—one whit more
■nose accurate. If Dr. Carpenter had then in his memory this means of throwing doubt on
the facts, why did he not mention it in his Lectures or in his article, instead of first
charging me with the ‘ expression’ of a faith which I never expressed or held, and then
attempting to change the issue by substituting other words for those which I really
complained of?
TOE. XVI.—NO. XCVI.
NEW SERIES.
3 »
�706
Psychological, Curiosities of Scepticism.
[December
Note B.—In the new edition of Dr. Carpenter’s Lectures (the proof of part of which has
been sent me) he supports his statement that—‘ there are at the present time numbers of
educated, men and women who have so completely surrendered their “common sense”
to a dominant prepossession, as to maintain that any such monstrous fiction (as of a person
being carried through the air in an hour from Edinburgh to London) ought to be
believed, even upon the evidence of a single witness, if that witness be one upon whose
testimony we should rely in the ordinary affairs of life,’—by saying that—the moon
light sail. of Mr. Home is extensively believed on the testimony of a single witness.’
Even if it were the fact that this particular thing is believed by some persons on the
testimony of a single witness, that would not justify Dr. Carpenter’s statement that
there are numbers of educated men and women who maintain as a principle that any
such thing, however monstrous, ought to be so believed. As, however, there are, as above
shown, three witnesses in this case, and at least ten in the case of Mrs. Guppy, also
referred to, it appears that Dr. Carpenter first makes depreciatory general statements,
and when these are challenged, supports them by a mis-statement of facts. Such a course
of procedure renders further discussion impossible.
Note C.—A letter of Dr. Carpenter’s has also ‘ at his own request ’ been forwarded to,
me, in which he attempts'^ justify the conduct narrated above. In Nature for November 15
Mr. Crookes printed the letter which was given in facsimile in American newspapers,
with remarks of a somewhat similar character to those I have here made. Dr. Carpenter’
writing three-days afterwards (November 18), wishes it to be stated in Fraser as his ‘ own
correction,’ that this letter was not carried away from England by Eva Fay; adding
—‘ What was carried away by Eva Fay was a much stronger attestation, publicly given in
full detail by JMr. Croohes in a communication to the Spiritualist;’—of which communica
tion I give an abstract in an appendix to this article. This obliges me to add a few
further particulars.
In Nature, October 25, in a note to a letter about the Radiometer, Dr. Carpenter says *
“ ‘ On the strength of a private letter from Mr. Crookes, which has been published injfuc*
simile, in the American newspapers, a certain Mrs. or Miss Eva Fay announced her
spiritualistic ” performances as endorsed by Prof. Crookes and other Fellows of the
Royal Society.’ ” This supposed letter was ‘ set forth ’ in detail in last month’s FrtMer
as above stated.
In Nature, November 8, Dr. Carpenter says, ‘And the now notorious impostor, Era
Fay, has been able to appeal to the “endorsement” given to her by the “scientific
tests ” applied to her by “ Professor Crookes and other Fellows of the Royal Society,”
which had been published (I now find) by Mr. Crookes himself in the Spiritualist in
March, 1875.’
From the above it follows, that it was between October 25 and November 8 that Dr.
Carpenter first became acquainted with Mr. Crookes’ account of his experiments with
Eva Fay ; and finding (from Mr. Crookes’ publication of it) that his own detailed
account of the contents of the facsimile letter was totally incorrect, he now makes a
fresh assertion—that Eva Fay ‘ carried away with her ’ a copy of the Spiritualist
containing Mr. Crookes’ experiments. This is highly probable, but we venture to doubt
if Dr. Carpenter has any authority to state it as a fact; while even if she did, that
article does not, any more than
facsimile letter, justify Dr. Carpenter’s allegations.
It contains not one word about the ‘ Spiritualistic nature of her manifestations,’—it does
not state that, he ‘ in common with other Fellows of the Royal Society had satisfied
himself of their genuineness’—it does not say that he ‘ willingly gave her the benefit of
his attestation. It is a detailed account of a beautiful scientific experiment, and nothing
more. Yet Dr. Carpenter still maintains (in his letter now before me) that his state
ments are correct, ‘ except on the one point—one of form not of substance—that of the
address of the letter in which Mr. Crookes attested the genuineness of the mediumship
of Eva Fay! ’
It thus appears that, when he wrote the article in last month’s Fraser, and the letter
in Future of October 25, Dr. Carpenter had not seen either the facsimile letter or the
account in the Spiritualist, and there is nothing to show that he even knew of the
existence of the latter article ; yet on the strength of mere rumour, newspaper cuttings,
or imagination, he gives the supposed contents of a letter from Mr. Crookes, empha
sising such obnoxious words as ‘ Spiritualistic ’ and ‘ manifestations,’ which Mr.
Crookes never once employed, and giving a totally false impression of what Mr. Crookes
had really done. _ So enamoured is he of this accusation, that he drags it into a purely <
scientific discussion on the Radiometer, and now, in his very latest communication,
makes no apology or retractation, but maintains all his statements as correct ‘ m substance.’
and declares that he ‘ cannot see that he has anywhere passed beyond the tone of
gentlemanly discussion.’
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Psychological curiosities of scepticism: a reply to Dr. Carpenter
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Wallace, Alfred Russel
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: p. 694-706 ; 22 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Appendix gives an abstract of "Mr Crookes's experiments above referred to". From Fraser's Magazine 16 (December 1877). A response to William Benjamin Carpenter's article 'Psychological Curiosities of Spiritualism, Fraser's Magazine 16 (November 1877).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1877
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT60
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Psychological curiosities of scepticism: a reply to Dr. Carpenter), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Scepticism
Conway Tracts
Scepticism