Naturally, in tables constructed on these lines, the facts cannot be classified according to their importance as proofs; they can only be reckoned as true or false. Thus incidents which have only a restricted value as proofs are on a level with others which are in themselves very valuable as proofs. This is really the weak point of these statistics. The proofs need to be examined one by one, and not as a whole.
However, the tables have one advantage; the greatest sceptic, after a glance at them, can no longer invoke chance, the great Deus ex machinâ of the ignorant and indolent.
Professor Hyslop has constructed a table for each sitting, and a table of the sittings as a whole. I cannot reproduce these tables for the readers, who would require the notes of the sittings to understand them. I shall only give the definite results.
Thus, out of 205 incidents, 152 are classed as true, 37 as indeterminate, and only 16 as false. Out of the 927 factors composing these incidents, 717 are classed as true, 167 as indeterminate, and 43 as false.[83]
It should be said that Professor Hyslop has perhaps overestimated the number of false and unverifiable incidents. Many incidents or factors classed as false or unverifiable have been later found to be exact. And besides, the incidents of a transcendental and consequently unverifiable nature might have been omitted from these tables. But in this case again it has been thought better to give the false and doubtful facts full play. The reader must draw from these results whatever conclusion seems to him the most correct.
[80] See Professor Hyslop's Report, Proc. of S.P.R., vol. xvi. p. 90, etc., for "Carruthers."
[81] Name of one of Professor Hyslop's brothers.
[82] Proc. of S.P.R., vol. xvi. p. 115.
[83] Proc. of S.P.R., vol. xvi. p. 121.