PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND GHOSTS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1048, 14 September 1883, Page 4

PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND GHOSTS.

The Pall Mall Gazette deprecates the inquiry into the authenticity of ghost stories promised by the “ Psychical Research’' Society, for fear it should encourage sensible people to believe in ghosts. A clerical correspondent of that journal has improved on this scepticism by “ a small syllogism,” which disposes once for all of the possibility of any scientific man believing . in the existance of ghosts. Here is the syllogism—“No really scientific observer will ever be led to believe in ghosts. Mr A. B. C. believes in ghosts, therefore, etc. —Q. E. D.” This is a kind of scepticism which is more closely allied to pig-headedness than to science. It is proverbially difficult to prove a negative; but it is not only difficult, it is impossible, to disprove the existence of ghosts, or their occasional apparition to mortal eyes, Even if it were possible (which it is not) to prove that no ghost has ever appeared on earth, science, whether physical ar metaphysical, supplies no calculus for the disproof of ghostly apparitions in the future. We may even go faither and say that the progress of physical science has made belief in ghosts easier instead of harder. The most advanced conclusions in regard to the laws of light and sound go to show the possibility of innumerable sights and sounds about us which may be invisible and inaudible simply because we have no organs sufficiently delicate to apprehend them. It is certain that some of the lower animals far surpass us in this respect—so far, indeed, in some cases, that their superiority, did we nqtknpw it as.a fact, would seem as incredible as ghosts. The microscojje .hES discovered a world of organised existences close to us which the naked eye knows nothing. Recent discoveries in the sphere of sound are not less startling. To put an arbitary limit to these discoveries and declare dogmatically that science has reached the end of its tether in such matters is not the mark of a scientific, but rather of an arrogantly prejudiced mind. What has science to say against the existence of being so ethereal as to be incapable of apprehension by human 1 senses, save only under abnormal conditions —either by temporary exaltation of the human faculties, or by such a modification of the normal laws cf spiritual substances as shall bring them temporarily within the cognisance of human senses? Absolutely nothing. physical beings—assuming their existence —moving close to us without ouij being aware of it ? It has also been shown to be possible for one

person to see sights and hear sounds of which another person, standing by his side, may be unaware. Professr Tyndall tells .astory of himself and afriend riding over a Swiss pass on a sultry day. Professor . Tyndall complained of the qeasfcless noise of the grasshoppers. This was inaudible to his companion ; but he was irritated by the monotonous thud of the mules’ hoofs on the turf, which, on the other hand, was inaud-

ible to Professor Tyndall. The ear "ot one was sensitive to the slow move-

ments, of the atmospheric waves, the other, to the rapid movements. * May ,this not be the explanation of the two apparently contradictory statements rhade by the author of the Acts and St

Paul concerning the miracle of his . conversion ? —first, that his travelling companions heqrd not the voice that spake to him on the way to Damascus; -second,that ihcy did ’•''■r i‘, but saw ,no man.; They heard the sound, perhaps, but failed to catch its articulate A similar incident is related in St John’s Gospel, where Jesus gives thanks to his father for words which sounded to the multitude like the inarticulate rumble of a clap of thunder. We are not arguing in favor of a belief in ghosts, or in the manifestations of so-called Spiritualism. We are arguing: against the unscientific -habit of"mind which would forbid, on aptiori grounds, any ' kind of rational investigation. No doubt the vast ■majority of ghost stories are myths, and we have never seen any exhibition of “ Spiritualism ” which could not be. explained by sleight - of- . hand* But the widespread belief in such phenonema is surely a reason ■ for inquiry rather than for a dogmatic tabooing of the whole subject. Superstition and error have never been put , dovirji by anathema; but they have , frequently vanished before the light of impartial investigation. No believer in ghosts will be shaken in his faith by a syllogism which violates the laws of logic by begging the very point in dispute. But make the matter, as indeed it is, a question of evidence pure and -simple, and we believe that but few ghost stories will stand the test. The instances are probably very few indeed in which a natural explanation will not account for the apparition. The nerves of the ghost seer are seldom in a condition favorable to calm and impartial 'Scrutiny, and there are in addition dis'orders of the brain which project images on the retina of the eye that are entirely subjective. Certain forms of malarious fever have this effect. We know of two instances—one that of a lady who, on the recurrence of the 'fever, used to see with unfailing regularity a* terrace with a peacock walking on it; the other that of a tiobleman iWho,. under similar circumstances, invariably saw a Sister of Mercy in his bedroom. By a singular coincidence a Sister of Mercy did attend to him in his last illness. When jihe entered he exclaimed “ The nun again !” and died. There is, however, a residuum of stories Of a supernatural or at least preternatural character, which cannot be so easily explained away.— Spectator.