SCIENCE FROM AN EASY CHAIR.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14830, 22 November 1913, Page 9

SCIENCE FROM AN EASY CHAIR.

SCIENCE AND GHOSTS. (Br Sir Ray Lankisteb, X.C B F.R.6.) ' (Special right* secured by "The Press.' , ) Sir Oliver Lodge has spoken! The President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science has expressed, his personal conviction that ghosts exist. He said in his inaugural address at Birmingham a few days ago that the facts, examined by ; him have convinced him "that memory and affection are not limited to that association with matter by -which alone they can manifest themselves here and now." Further, that the evidence, to Bis mind, goes to prove "that 'discarnate intelligence , (by this Sir Oliver means what ordinary people-would call 'ghosts') under certain conditions may interact with us on the material side (whatever that may mean), and that gradually wo may hope to attain some understanding of the nature of a larger, perhaps" etherial existence, and of the conditions regulating intercourse across the chasm."

Later, at this same meeting of the British Association for tte Advancement of Science, there was a discussion of the subject dealt with by Sir Edward Schafer in his presidential address to the Association, last year, viz., the progress of chemists, working in the laboratory, towards the putting together of chemical elements derived from non-living sources, so as to build up, step by step, elaborate compounds (molecules) of definite character identical "with those found in living things, and hitherto only known as the products of living things. With this, it J™"., be remembered, Sir Edward cchafer briefly discussed tho probability of chemists being able to carry the process further, and at last to build up, withoutusing matter wliich is already . * l 7 ln S>" a substance which will, once it is produced, undergo those changes of oxidation, waste,' and nutrition, r ??i*J l ai3 d reproduction, which are exhibited by "protoplasm." and are what we describe as •'li Ting." Sir uuver Lodge took part in the discussion or this subject at Birmingham, and "Saiu introduced to the notice of the assembled biologists Ms personal convic«M ° exis t«nce of ghosts. Ho w& m "The Times." that in AFS? (that is > the building up mJ&t t laboratory) of living StL W^at man y icopte were Ind h^fei~? th B"** perseverance, they had But whea woTldiSt^S?^ 1 " , matter it cTs^ct U?sl .SJPP f life, but, the vehicle which cliernical life n ThiT t W be md « use of D ? same * mere jf f e what our forefetE? ?^5 fc + ? g^ - ammans"~and Ucd T tfl ? amm , a •W-must «n££ ,v " J^ cal substance whi&T,* ?j: ate < *" >ua ~ a chemist may pos-

sibly construct, and that then, and then only, will the chemical compound live. When, according to this ancient superstition espoused by Sir Oliver, the ghost leaves the chemical compoundmuch as gas escapes from a glass or soda-water—it will cease to live, in fact, become "flat."

The expression of his "belief m the truth of the supposition that gnos" really exist—a belief which Sir Oliver Lodgo shares with a large majority ot mankind—is one which he, or anyone else, has a perfect right to makey-on a suitablo occasion. It is a little bit ot autobiography—a confession which so me will reijret and with which others will sympathise. To mc, it seems to be singularly out of place at a meeting tor the advancement of science, and especially so when it is given the prominence of inclusion in the presidential address. My objection is not due to intolerance" of a belief which I do not share; nor is it due to a denial on my part, on "a priori 1 ' grounds, of the possibility of the existence of ghosts ("discarnate intelligences" and ajtherial paseengers in material vehicles). I do not deny such possibility. It is (in so far as 1 have been able to trace the history of human knowledge) not tho business of science to deny or to affirm "possibilities." It is precisely by the refusal to discuss possibilities, and by being, at tho same time, willing and anxious to receive and verify tangible oemonstration of a fact, however improbable it may appear, that those whom we call "men of science" have within the last 250 years changed tho whole current of human thought and created that inestimable treasure —ever growing and developing—which is now known as "science" or "'physical-science." Those who think as I do, regard the mental attitude which consists in refusing to waste time and strength in mere speculation as to possibilities, and, on the other hand, in demanding and searching for demonstrative verifiable evidence, as tho very mainspring of science. They regard the intrusion of suppositions and beliefs as to ghostly existences, unaccompanied by the smallest attempt at demonstration, into the proceedings of an Association for the Advancement of Science—as a danger and injury to that advancement, and a flagrant opposition to the fundamental principle by adhesion to which modern science has been created.

That is not intolerance, but the expression of a desire to guard and preserve from disease and destruction the most beneficent product of human thought. That body of (statement which wo call "science" is based on demonstration and scrupulous verification. It has been—successfully hitherto and of set purpose—kept apart from mere fancies and pious beiiets. llio latter aro often pretty and interesting ; they are sometimes fine and good things. But they must not bo allowed to infect science, nor to undermine in any way the great principle upon which its very existence depends.

Modern science and the conscious and deliberate use of -'the scientific method" as a recognised instrument for tho acquirement of new knowledge, are Jess than threo centuries ' old. The founders of the Royal society for the Promotion of Natural Knowledge, incorporated under that title 200 years ago, took for their motto "Aullius in verba," and they showed what they understood by those words when they urged their fellows not to mate londiscourse of wonders and marvellous narrations, but to "bring in" an experiment or a specimen, "in fact, they adopted the principle of appealing to experiments and actual tests of things to be carried out in their presence, and of refusing to waste time on the discussion of the dream related by Mr A. or Mr B's beliefs about vampires, or what some learned writer of antiquity had stated as to the properties of dragons, or how many angels can dance on a needle's point. They insisted that the vampire and the dragon should bo placed "on the table," that angels should be brought before them, and their power of dancing on a needle's point exhibited, before they would discuss these things at all. The attitude taken by them rapidly became widely prevalent. It was known as the J\ew Philosophy. I do not say that it was the invention of the Royal Society; it belonged to the ago. it was favoured by the King (who was not only a merry monarch, but a man of shrewd understanding), and also by the highlyeducated class in this country as well as" by similar persons abroad."

The adoption of this attitude of investigation was followed by the rapid collapse and disappearance from importance of all sorts of cruel and hurtful superstitions. The belief in witchcraft shrunk to its present obscurity—only tyro prosecutions of witches have occurred in this country since the incorporation of the Royal Society by charter in 1C62. Beliefs in sympathetic powders, magical stones, divining-rods, and such things were dispelled like a mist by the rising sun, as the result of putting them to the test of experiment' and accepting no man's mere statement of Tiis belief in such things as a ground for admitting their reputed marvellous qualities. At the same time knowledge based securely on experimental demonstration and the examination of actual things, increased at an astonishing rate, and culminated in the last century. The "method" of not bl-.ndly accepting a guess or belief as to the causes or relations of observer occurrences, but of at once testing such guess or belief by framing a 'deduction—a n inference^—from such guess or belief, the truth of which inference could bo put to the proof of actual observation, became the established habit of the investigators of Nature. "If," they said, "this belief or supposition is true, then so-and-so, which I can put to the test of observation here and now, should be true. Let us see whether it is so or m>t." That was the ''scientific method" by which all the vast mass of knowledge of plrysics, chemistry, and biology wasestablished in the 2-50 years which have passed since the Iloyal Society was founded. And it is to this world of knowledge., steadily built up and applied to the industries and well-being of human communities, that we owe our modern civilisation, our steam engines, railways, ocean ships, our chemical manufactures, our electric telegraphs, lighting and power transmission, onr healthier food and habitations, our fuller and e-nfor lives. Notonly that: It is to tins experimental knowledge that we owe our freedom of thought, our escape from disastrous illusion, our assured and happy survey of tiio evolution of Xature, including human nature. Therefore we hold the method of the Royal Society of 250 years ago—the exclusion of mere words and- sL-itenion+s of belief and the installation of the appeal to experiment—• to bo one of the greatest treasures in roans possession, and we must regard with deer, resentment' mv attemo'fc to inmner with this guiding principle which has created and established experimental knowledge or "science." Ijiis principle or method continues to give us, in the present as in the past. an ever-increasing extension of exact and verified knowledge. The "advancement of science" is the purpose for which the British Association was founded, and that for which it pro.fcssedlv holds its meetings. It was not established for the narration of beliefs and supinations concerning ghosts unsupported by evidence. " J

Our forefathers tho founders of "the Royal Society for the Promotion of Natural Knowledge" would have asked Sir Oliver Lodge to "bring in" an experiment or a specimen in proof of his beliefs, his phrases, and suppositions about "discarnate intelligences." and in their absence would have declined to let him occupy their time. And

they would have done this, and did so act, iv regard to similar talkers of their day, such as Sir Kenelm Digby, not because they denied the possibility of the existence of ghosts and ''such"wild fowl" (many of them firmly believed in such existences), but because they had discovered that the' great principle of investigation and the building up of knowledge is the rquirement of demonstrative evidence of things asserted, and the rejection of mere statements of belief or fancy, whosoever may proffer them.

Sir Oliver Lodge, in his address, seeks to prepare the wav for the reception of his hypothetical ghosts as plausible and needful conceptions by conjuring _up select specimens of scientific investigators who are so blinded by their occupation iv special branches of science that they are unable to do what he supposes that he is able to do —namely, to take a larsre view of existence. Hβ seems to think that there are biologists and others ignorant enough to maintain that all existence and "the nature of things" can be explained by physics and chemistry. He supposes such persons to deny the possibility of the existence of ghosts on the ground thnt they cannot be accounted for by physics and chemistry. There may bo such persons, and we leave Sir Oliver to deal with them when found. There are others (of whom I am one , ) who — in common with Huxley—admit that science docs not explain existence nor the ultimate nature of things at all. Sir Oliver makes an urgent appeal in favour of the plausihilitv of ghosts. Ho omits to state or consider'the real objection which all reasonable men entertain to a 'belief in the existence of ghosts—namely, that the PrViadent of tho British Association has not, any more than have other such believers, brought forward, a particle of experimental evidence in favour of it. The best evidence forthcoming is not sufficient to induce a. normal man to bet five pounds on the successful demonstration of a ghost's existence against five thousand offered on tho other side.

Sir Oliver Lodge assumes, without more ado, in his Birmingham discourse, that the various physical and chemical processes which we detect in plants and animals and speak of as characterising them as "living" things, whilst we sum up these processes as the "life" of tho plant or animal, are due to the presence of an "entity" corresponding to tho word "life." The practice of assorting the existence or "entities" (a variety of the ghost family) suggested by words or names for processes, is as old as barbarism, and has happily been got rid of in these latter days after clogging human thought for centuries. Sir Oliver's predecessors in this now discredited trick of self-illusion have imagined the existence of an endless 6eries of such entities. "Woodenness was the "entity" for which wood was tho "vehicle" I* Aquosity was the ghostly occupant of water. Quite respectable and long-lived was tho entity called "caloric," -which was supposed, by entering things, to make them hot, and, departing, left them cold. I agree with those who deny—not the possibility of the existence of such entities, but —the existence of valid evidence that they exist. I maintain further that there is no longer any value in the provisional hypothesis that they exist; on the contrary, such hypotheses lead to obscurity of thought and the hindering of knowledge.

There are many of my way of thinking who hold that it is conceivable, and even probable, that there aro existences beyond or within, or apart from and other than, those of which wo have experimental evidence. As we cannot truthfully affirm or aeny anything about such existences, we have to be careful not to tolerate the introduction of suppositions about them into the pure fabric of science, lest at its source the greatest and the Tarest of all human qualities —veracity. It would indeed be unwise to run that risk tor tho sake of indulgence in flights of fancy which, whilst they possess no novelty and little merit as poetry, are devoid of value either to science or religion.