Abstract
ONE wonders who are the onlookers who would be so ‘unwise’ as to elevate any of the three ‘hypotheses’ mentioned by Sir Oliver Lodge (NATURE, October 30, p. 622) to the “high status required of a scientific theory”. Few would dignify even by the term hypothesis what are simply observations. Granted genuine phenomena, how much further are we scientifically? Granted ‘ectoplasm’, can science justify repetitions of the human vivisection necessary to produce it when there is no purpose, except curiosity, in view? Granted an ‘intelligence’ behind the phenomena, can science say to which order amongst the myriad intelligences of Nature such belongs? Granted a ‘spirit’ hypothesis, can science describe or define spirit?
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
L., W. Science and Psychical Research. Nature 118, 693–694 (1926). https://doi.org/10.1038/118693a0
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/118693a0
