LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 75, 22 December 1920, Page 8

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

SPIRITUALISM

Sir,—My first letter was a plea for tlio suspension of judgment on _ the alleged proofs of the truth- of spiritualism. As such it was liable to 1)0 attacked both by those who regarded the doctrines of spiritualism as definitely established ana those who regarded them as definitely falsified. When I queried the authenticity of the contqnls of the spiritualist, holy of holies I thought it probable that were J. honoured by a reply from the high priest such a reply would' at least be careluily reasoned and would take cognisance ot what T had actually said. Were it not for Mr. Stewart's signature as chairman of the Wellington Spiritual Scientist Ohurc.li. the intellectual level of his letter would lead me to suppose that I had stumbled «3ain6t nil irate caretaker, I was aware when writing that a niuctt eoveror criticism of the claims .ot spiritualism was justified. I refrained irora sucli a lino because my letter was intended rather for inquirers than for devotees, nnd I was anxious not to impose unduly on the courtesy of your. space lleing mindful also of the vastness of tho iiola both of knowledge and 1 lack of knowiedgo over which epiritunlism sprawls, 1 wained your readers against the assumption that because I felt a duty lo draw attention to tlio other sido of the coin, I wished to imply any exceptional in«l»fications for myself in doing so. All that lam entitled to hope for'is the judgment of your readers on the merits of tlio case as presented. > I cannot note without a measure of amusement ami of satisfaction that iny opponent is not embarrassed by any similar considerations, Ho has even mercifully tempered his vengeance by warning me of the risks I run, and "fully agrees" with an alleged doubt on my part of my ability "to conduct a controversy on tho subject" (of course with bini siuco he haa entered ugon it). I feel some amusement because his arrogance has betrayed him into placing unwittingly at mv disposal liiorQ missiles than I need for my present purpose, and some satisfaction in having his implied assurance that with himself at the wicket no novice will be afraid of injuring tlio spiritualist stumpn. Tlio salient features of Mr. Stewart's "reply" may bo summarised as follow: — (a) He lias ignored the main features of my letter: e.g., the criticism of Sir Arthur's presentation of evidence beyond an expression of preference fur Sir Arthur's judgment. Further, if he had taken tlie trouble to read what I said about "self-deception" ho would have spared himself tlie humiliation of offering- a particularly flagrant instancy of a spiritualistic ' practice of which I had compTiiTned, when iiy asserting the veracity of his "authorities" he speciously-en-deavoured to confine tho issues lo alternatives of fact or fraud alone.

(b) He has, perverted my argument to im)?ly that if I did not accept his (unspecified!) "facts" I should be obliged to dispense with electricity. '(c) Finally ho invokes sow* occult, power to discover admissions on my part for which no tittle .of evidouco is ;lo be. found in my letter ("doubting his capacity to give nn unbjased judgment"). Space has restricted mo to single instances,. but these will furnish your readers with lirst-li.md evidence of the methods by which some spiritualists build a religion- It will "uo remembered tnat; oven the "saftest of the family" (pace Sir Harry Lauder) at least required a nut to build a motor-car. ' , There is a welcome point, in Mr. Stewart's letter on which wo approach ugreemeut: "A large percentage- uf the audience were quite content lo take tho technical side of the matter'as fully settled by those qualified (as suggested by tho spiritualist) to express au opinion." My bracket insertion mnkes tho latent and essential point clear, bringing ill. Stewa.it 'and myself to complete unanimity therein. It is precisely tlris assumption which is acted upon every, day by every charlatan and every quack. Iu contradistinction to tho rest of their assumptions it has the merit of being psychologically true. A little coniuring with great names (tho. method of the vendor. uf proprietary medicines) is sufficient to implant in the average man a conviction stronger than that engendered by argument, and is thus particularly useful to those whoso case is not otherwise so convincing as it misht be. Assumptions of this kind are not closely scrutinised by tho general public. , Similarly only Mr. Stewart's knowledge of tho fact that the majority of your readers would not compare our respective letters closely could luivo tempted hj.ni to nllogo admissions on my part for which the proof is nether.explicit nor implied. Mr. Stewart chokes with rhetorical indignation at tho suggestion of doing anything else but accepting at their fata value the conclusions of his alleged authorities with whom space prevents onu from dealing in (letail. What conclusions ho referred to he forgot to mention. Is-it .possible that h;s authorities are not agreed? -Mr. Stewart's silenca on the point is suspicious, and I must ask:

"l. 'Which of his nine (presumablyleadi»g) authorities are psychologists (i.e.i are by. training egulpped fur investigating tliis question)? *. 2. What are the specific "facts which Wallacc asserted and for which Sir. Stewart has implied the endorsement of the other eight? 3. Wlmt relation do these "facts bear to the cieed of the Church Mr. Stewart represents, and will he cite such creed? While my first feeling is one of gratefulness that Mr, Stewart should invito to participate in his vestigations one so uiierly and incapable as ho claim? to have shown me to be, I cannot but confess candidly that I do nut regard the study of the subject after tho fashion of Spiritualists as likely to lead to results comparable in importance with those of true scientific investigation. Spiritualism is, however, most definite,, distinctive, and arrogant in its assertion o-' facts not generally endorsed by science and for tho investigation of these ic claims to niford facilities not elsewhere offered. lam referring to its distinctive doctrine of the secretion ot ectoplasm bv the medium. While, therefore, I do not owe to Spiritualism any debt for an interest in psychical inatiCTs, nor can. 1 regard the Spiritualist as a trustworthy witness, I heartily accept Mr. Williams's invitation and propose to begin on what is for me the central scientific assertion of Spiritualists. 1 should bo clad if Mr. Williams will arrange for the production under conclusive scientitio conditions of some ectoplasm for isolation wid analysis. I aiy jure that many of the public wpuld be glad to witness the operation, and I would be happy if Mr. Williams would make the necessary provision in Ilia arrangements.—l, am, 6tC " ' DOUGLAS SEYMOUIt.