Again as to "Spirit Photography." The term "Psychic Photography" would be far preferable, as implying no theory. The experiences of Mr. J. Traill Taylor, which I have selected as the sole illustration, appear to leave no moral doubt but that under certain circumstances photographs are produced which known laws are unable to explain. Definite and recognisable human figures and faces are thus obtained. But this is a very long way from proving that "spirits" sit or stand before the camera for their photographs to be taken!
If some trained experimenter in scientific research, who possesses an unbiassed mind, would devote himself for two or three years to the study of either of these classes of phenomena, it is almost a certainty that he would be richly rewarded. Is there no one who will enter upon the task?
There is one large group of evidence, embracing most of the phenomena which have been under consideration, from which I had hoped to make copious selections, with pleasure to myself, and with interest to the reader. No living scientist has bestowed so large an amount of study on "certain phenomena usually termed spiritualistic" as Sir William Crookes. As long ago as the year 1874, Sir William Crookes gave permission for the reprint of a limited number of copies of various articles which he had contributed to the periodical literature of the day. These, with some other original matter, were published under the title of "Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism." That volume has long been out of print. In 1890, an article by Sir William Crookes, under the title of "Notes of Seances with D. D. Home," was published in volume vi. of the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research. He also referred to his experiences with D. D. Home, in two addresses delivered at meetings of the Society in 1894 and in 1899. These are reported in the Journal of the Society. Sir William Crookes also devoted a portion of his address, as President of the British Association in 1898, to a reference to the part he took many years before in psychical research. This portion of the address was reprinted in volume xiv. of the Proceedings of the Society.
Considerations, which cannot be entered into here, compel me, however, to be content with referring the reader to the publications mentioned, a study of which will, I think, bring conviction that the scientific evidence they contain would, even if it stood alone, be amply sufficient to prove the reality of the alleged phenomena.[67]
We are now warranted in the assertion that we have arrived at this position: That the careful reader is compelled to admit that the evidence in favour of a variety of alleged physical phenomena being undoubted facts, is too strong to be resisted. We are accustomed to say in ordinary life, the proof of this or that is complete. The man of science is accustomed to say in his own sphere of inquiry, the proof of this or that is complete. Applying the same rules of evidence to physical phenomena generally called spiritualistic, we are bound to admit that in regard to many of them the proof of their reality is complete. Yet these facts are not recognised by the world of science, and are scarcely deemed worthy of any serious attention by the majority of intelligent people.
It may be worth while to consider for a few moments the mode in which new knowledge enters the mind. By new knowledge is meant not extension of existing knowledge, but facts of a new order, such, for instance, as the rising of a heavy dining table into the air without any recognised physical cause being apparent. The difficulty of admitting new facts of this kind to the mind is not confined to any one class of people. Indeed the difficulty appears to be greater in the case of highly educated people than among the comparatively uninformed. Sir Oliver Lodge has recently said: "What does a 'proof' mean? A proof means destroying the isolation of an observed fact or experience by linking it on with all pre-existent knowledge; it means the bringing it into its place in the system of knowledge; and it affords the same sort of gratification as finding the right place for a queer-shaped piece in a puzzle-map. Do not let these puzzle-maps go out of fashion; they afford a most useful psychological illustration; the foundation of every organised system of truth is bound up with them.... It is because a number of phenomena, such as clairvoyance, physical movement without contact, and other apparent abnormalities and unusualnesses, cannot at present be linked on with the rest of knowledge in a coherent stream—it is for that reason that they are not, as yet, generally recognised as true; they stand at present outside the realms of science; they will be presently incorporated into that kingdom, and annexed by the progress of discovery."[68]
Mr. F. C. S. Schiller, in an article in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, expresses a similar thought in a different manner. He says:—
"A mind unwilling to believe, or even undesirous to be instructed, our weightiest evidence must ever fail to impress. It will insist on taking that evidence in bits, and rejecting it item by item. The man therefore who announces his intention of waiting until a single absolutely conclusive bit of evidence turns up, is really a man not open to conviction, and if he is a logician, he knows it. For modern logic has made it plain that single facts can never be 'proved,' except by their coherence in a system. But as all the facts come singly, any one who dismisses them one by one, is destroying the conditions under which the conviction of new truth could arise in his mind."[69]
Mr. Myers, in summing up the evidence in the case of Mr. Stainton Moses, dwells on the importance of simple repetition. This, though practically effective, is scarcely a scientific consideration. A fact is none the less a fact on account of the rarity of its occurrence, any more than the existence of a rare animal or plant is rendered questionable by the fewness of the number of specimens which have been found.