The Dominion. SATURDAY, OCTUBER 14, 1911. TELEPATHY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1259, 14 October 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, OCTUBER 14, 1911. TELEPATHY.

«• Some new light is shed upon the mystoriesof "telepathy" by a singular and instructive controversy in the London Daily News. Towards the end of August last an advertisement in the London Times announced that for six months past £1000 had heen privately on offer to "the leading authorities and writers of repute on telepathy for "satisfactory proofs of so-called thought transference," hut that not one single case could be found. The offer, it was-announced, was still open, One of the persons responsible for the id- , vertiasment frankly, allowed that

his motives were simply "auti"spook," "spookcry," he said, "covering all sorts of things which the man in the street cannot readily explain" : "Our point is lo bring home to that man in the street who reads certain book?, and who has been led to believe that telepathy is proved by heaps of evidence, that the whole idea is due to imagination and delusion.'' It soon became quite evident that there are just as many enthusiastic and violent sceptics as enthusiastic and argu-ment-proof believers; although it is a little difficult to know why anybody should feel that the tclepathists are dangerous persons. A typical letter in defence of telepathy complained of the scepticsin this curious manner: "The reliability of telegraphy may be impaired by storms, vortices, and electrical discharges in the air, and in like manner the success of telepathic experiments may be negatived by violent and chaotic mental activities, consciously or unconsciously exercised by supposed passive observers (desire, passion, and strategic cunning producing a confused mental atmosphere). The evidence of scientific experimenters may be, and is, valuable, but to thousands the proof lies in the facts of their personal experience." This, of course, begs the whole question, and not only that, but rejects the idea that the claims of thought-transfer-ence should be tested in any normal way. For a few days, however, the believers had rather the best of it, since they could quote recorded "cases," while the sceptics, in the nature of things, could disprove nothings, being in just the position of an ordinary audience that has seen a skilful conjurer, and is challenged to prove that the lady did disappear into thin air. The most they could do was to remind their opponents of Eusapia Palladino. One of the believers put forward what appeared to be a final argument: Two persons, A and B, being men of good standing and uuimpeached integrity, represent that they are in telepathic sympathy with each other. In older to investigab their claim, two persons, C and 1), invite A and B to the house of D. B Li then blindfolded and placed in j a seixu'a-c room. C aud D, the investigators, tiwu colbborate iu drawing on paper a sunple design—say, a rude sketch of a bird. This design is then shown by them to A for a few moments. A is then taken into the r-Min where B sits blindfolded. A tikes B by tho hand for a while, thoi releases it. No words pass. li, re.uaining blindfolded, then takes a pencil and draws au impression of a shape which has been suggested to his mind. He draws a figuro which (he says) he takes to 1m a geometrical, diagram. It is, in fact, just such a representation of a bird as young children draw on their slates, with oval body, triangular tail, round head, and rectilinear legs. It is loalcing in tho some direction, and is in. rough lv the kiuks attitudo as tho bird sketched by C and D. Now is this "evidence that will stand cross-examination" ? The case is one of hundreds which have occurred under tho .observation of investigators belonging to tho Psychical Research Society. A and B were Mt. ; Douglas Blackburn and Mr. G. Albert Smith respectively. C and D were Xlr. Gurney and Mr. F. W. 11. Myers. Tho place was Brighton, the time December, ISB2. A v.holo series of drawings do no in this way on (his occasion is given in the investigators' report, printed in tho "Proceedings" of tJio society. Other reports of investigations of the same character are scattered through several volumes of tho "Proceedings, reproductions of the drawing's being given. In many cuscs th.cro wa.s no contact between the transmitter and tho receiver of the pictures. On what reasonablo grounds can wo accuse Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Smith of fraud? They aro serious experimenters. 1 do not ask how they could possibly have worked a fraud in this case, because if the talk about a "code" is to be brought into any and every ease of this kind, irrespective of the diameter of the persons concerned, I fully admit that there are few on record (so far as my knowledge goes) in which it was not just barely conceivable, that some swindling device was being worked. But if evidenco that will stand cross-examination is wanted, what is the matter with this case—one, as I say, of hundreds? The sequel was very instructive. The sceptics could make no reply. They did not even suggest that Blackburn and Smith were guilty of trickery. And they might have gone on in impotent disbelief had not Mr. Blackburn himself suddenly fired a terrific bombshell into the controversy by sending the Daily News a special article confessing that all his won-der-working was mechanical trickery. Mr. Blackburn is, he says, the only survivor of that group of experimentalists, and "with mingled feelings of regret and satisfaction," he now declares that "the whole of those alleged experiments were bogies, and originated in tho honest desire of two youths to show how easily men of scientific mind and training could be deceived when seeking for evidence in support of a theory they were wishful to establish. In the late 'seventies and early 'eighties a wave of so-called occultism passed over England, and Brighton, where Mr. Blackburn was editing a weekly journal, became a happy hunting ground for mediums of every kind. He started an exposure campaign, and was rather successful. In 1882 he encountered Mr. G. A. Smith, an extremely ingenious conjurer, and agreed with him to "show up" _ the flourishing professors of occultism. One of their exhibitions was fully and enthusiastically described in Light, the spiritualistic paper, and on the strength of it Messrs. Myers, Gurney, and Podmore called on them and asked for a private demonstration. The two young men did not realise the scientific standing and earnest motive of these gentlemen, whom they took to be "only a superior typo of spiritualistic cranks. The whole affair was a matter of complicated codes, which Mr. Blackburn not unwisely refrains from describing. The chief interest of his article is ,his comment upon the attitude of 'believers in telepathy. Again and again Messrs. Myers and Gurney "gave the benefit of the doubt to experiments that were failures. They allowed us to impose our own conditions, accepted without demur our explanations of 'failure, and, in short, exhibited a complaisance and confidence which was scarcely consonant with a strict investigation on behalf of the public." Years of observation have convinced him that the majority of investigators and reporters in psychical research are lacking in accuracy of observation and in impartiality. He has con'stantly "detected persons of otherwise unimpeachable rectitude touching up and re-dressing the weak points in their narratives of telepathic experiences." He has even known the wife of a Bishop to err in this way. Nobody will expect that Mr. Blackburn's confession will shake the faith of those who believe in the reality of telepathic rapport; but it is obvious that it shakes the foundations and destroys a good part i of the structure that has beep erected upon the desire of. mankind to find an explanation for everything. Perhaps in time the pathologist will , have established a. mass of truths re- . snooting • the brain and the nerves , that will explain all the supposed cases of thought-transference as satisfactorily m Newtos's laivs explain , the uclifises.