Thus far, our attention has been centred upon the _tendenz_, the
basis of interest, and the affiliations of Psychical Research.
It will be well to turn to a consideration of the content of the
problems. Inasmuch as the term represents a convenient but arbitrary
designation of a heterogeneous group of phenomena, we are prepared
to find that the data of the several problems thus collected
will be as diverse as their methods of study. We may begin with
the group of problems which might properly be considered in the
chapter of Abnormal Psychology that is devoted to the milder forms
of aberrant or unusual mental phenomena. The study of hypnotism
occupies a prominent place in Psychology and in Psychical Research.
The remarkable exhibitions of extreme suggestibility, particularly
the hyperæsthesia thus inducible, and again the illumination of
the subconscious thereby effected, have brought about a realizing
sense of how fearfully and wonderfully we are made. Between savage
priest and doctor, and Delphic oracle, and mediæval ascetic, and
magnetic somnambule, and inspirational medium, there is an irregular
connection in their entrance into a trance-like condition involving a
readjustment of the strata of consciousness and of the distribution
of authority in the hierarchy of the nervous centres. This was and
remains one of the gateways to the land of marvel and mystery. The
importance of hypnotism in Psychology is in its use, both as a method
of exhibiting the relations of processes not otherwise accessible
to experiment, and as a demonstration of the actual possibilities
of suggestion in health and disease. The hypnotic phenomena are
intrinsically interesting and valuable as contributions to the
natural history of mentality; the hypnotic method of study offers the
experimental psychologist the opportunity to apply his most potent
aid to research in precisely that field of inquiry in which the
experimental methods of ordinary consciousness are least available.
In this domain, the psychologist and the "psychical researcher"
proceed most amicably; and yet their purposes and points of view lead
them frequently to part company, although it may be only for a brief
_au revoir_. When the "psychical researcher" leaves the main highway
to track a possible "telepathic" hypnotic subject, or one who, while
hypnotized, is sensitive to the magnetic current, or who experiences
the characteristic effects of drugs applied in sealed vials to the
back of the neck, or who falls into the hypnotic condition when
handling a "magnetized" doll,--the psychologist is apt to decline the
invitation to join in the pursuit. I should advise him, however, to
go along for the sake of the excellent illustrations thus obtainable
of the effects of unconscious suggestion. From the time of the
first serious investigation of these phenomena up to the present,
unconscious suggestion has been one of the most potent influences
for the production of alleged marvels and pseudo-phenomena. All the
series of experiments brought forward at irregular intervals during
the past century to establish supernormal sensibilities have depended
for their apparent success (apart from trickery) upon unconscious
suggestion of the operators, combined with the shrewd assimilation
of the desired or expected result on the part of the subjects.
The transposition of the senses discovered by Pétetin (1787), the
hypnotized subjects who in Braid's day (1850) proved the location
of the phrenological organs by the appropriateness of their actions
when certain parts of the head were pressed, the sensitiveness to
magnets and hermetically sealed drugs brought forward by Reichenbach
(1845), and by Bourru and Burot (1885), and Dr. Luys's (1890)
absurd trifling with puppets, and probably, too, Charcot's sharp
differentiation of distinct hypnotic conditions (1882),--all furnish
illustrations of the subtle possibilities of unconscious suggestion.
Besides adorning an interesting psychological tale, they point a
moral to the intending investigator, and open his eyes to the extreme
caution necessary to exclude this source of error, and to realize the
ever-present possibility that, in spite of the sterilizing apparatus
and the other equipments of modern research, the germs of this
insidious form of delusion may have been unwittingly introduced.
The application of our knowledge of hypnotism to the explanation
of alleged supernormal and unusual sensibilities is particularly
interesting to the "psychical researcher"; the general enlargement
of our knowledge of these conditions, irrespective of such an
application, represents the aim of the psychologist. The latter may
indeed cite Mr. Lang's dictum that "science is only concerned with
truth, not with the mischievous inferences which people may draw from
truth," as an excuse for his own declination to coöperate in the
correction of such mischievous inferences. But the civic conscience
of the psychologist may convince him that the removal of error is
often an indispensable requisite to the dissemination of truth.
The study of the subconscious or the subliminal consciousness, of
multiple personality, of mental automatisms, of involuntary actions,
of induced visualizations, of sporadic hallucinations, may be cited
as further illustrations of topics interesting to the "psychical
researcher" for their bearings upon the apparent transcendence of
the normal, and to the psychologist for illustrations of important
groups of mental processes and relations. I must refer to the general
literature for descriptions of these several phenomena; the subtle
connection between one hypnotic condition and the next, bridging
over a period of normal consciousness with complete forgetfulness
of the hypnotic consciousness; the still more subtle evidence for
the latency of impressions thus revivable by an appeal to the
subconscious; the elaboration, in trance experiences, of these nether
world phenomena into organized personalities, which in the remarkable
case reported by Professor Flournoy expanded from a personification
of Marie Antoinette to that of a Martian revisiting Mars, describing
Martian scenery and customs, and writing in Martian language, and
again to the reincarnation of a Hindu princess of four centuries
ago; the affiliation of these cases to those of spontaneous loss
of personality in actual life, like that of the Rev. Ansel Bourne,
related by Professor James; the automatic writings performed by
hypnotic subjects and by persons in normal conditions; the power to
induce visions by "crystal gazing," and auditory hallucinations by
"shell-hearing"; the census of hallucinations, together with the
very important series of observations relative to the psychology
of deception,--these represent the more truly psychological
contributions of psychologists and "psychical researchers" to their
common domain.
The place which the explanation of spiritualistic and theosophic
manifestations occupies in Psychical Research has already been noted;
that of ghosts and rappings and haunted houses and _poltergeists_ is
quite similar. Not wholly yet measurably different is the status
of the study of hallucinations, presentiments, and previsions or
premonitions. In this entire group of phenomena, the interests of
Psychology and of Psychical Research are in the main distinct. This
is readily illustrated with reference to the study of hallucinations.
These are interesting to the psychologist quite in the same sense
as any other natural product of psycho-physiological action; the
prevalence of hallucinations under fairly normal conditions presents
one out of a large number of interesting details, and forms a proper
investigation for the Society for Psychical Research. Their census
of hallucinations hardly bears out the conclusions which have
been drawn therefrom, but contains much interesting information.
When, however, the emphasis of the investigation is placed upon
"veridical" hallucinations, and the establishment of the conclusion
that so many more of these hallucinations and presentiments "come
true," or have a mysterious significance, than chance would allow,
then the psychological interest is quite obscured by an interest
of a totally different character. A "veridical" hallucination has
little psychological pertinence; for it is equally interesting
psychologically whether it happens to come true or not. The bearing
of the hallucination upon or its origin in some of the occupations
of normal waking life; the possibility of its interpretation as
a peculiar retroactive illusion of memory, as Professor Royce
has suggested for some cases; its significance as an unconscious
perception of the shadow already present, not yet visible to
consciousness, but coming before the event,--such are significant
characteristics of hallucinations. The results of the study of
hallucinations may likewise be applied to a determination of their
relation to the sum total of the sequences of consciousness that
constitute our mental life; but there is only a most incidental
psychological interest in the apparently personally significant or
"veridical" aspect of the phenomena. And furthermore, whether they
are truly "veridical" or only seemingly so; whether, in other words,
there is evidence enough in quality and quantity to make it a proper
scientific inquiry as to the existence of a cause-and-effect-like
relation between presentiment and issue,--this is a logical inquiry,
although one which, along with other factors, includes psychological
considerations.
We here naturally approach what has, on the whole, formed the most
conspicuous problem of Psychical Research--that associated with the
term "telepathy." It will contribute to clearness of distinction to
consider separately the question, whether the evidence accumulated
in any wise justifies the conclusion, that there exists a form of
communication occasionally going on between mind and mind apart
from the recognized channels of sensation. This, too, is a strictly
logical question, and is so presented in the following essay. We
are here concerned with the status of telepathy in its relation to
Psychology and Psychical Research; this it is possible to indicate
briefly. First, if there really exist this extra-normal, fitful
and occasional, uncertain and sporadic form of communication,
and if it can be conceived of in psychological terms, it forms
an interesting, possibly even a momentous contribution to our
knowledge of mental processes. In the present status of the alleged
conditions of operations of telepathy, it will hardly modify
seriously the direction or scope of the development of Psychology.
It being unnecessary to cross bridges before coming to them, it may
be sufficient to observe that up to the present there exists no
decided prospect either of the demonstration of the reality of this
process or of its psychological formulation; and far less either of
its inclusion within the science of Psychology, or of its practical
utilization. When the day comes when the incontestable establishment
of telepathy, as indeed of any totally novel contribution to
Psychology, shall require a revision of psychological principles,
Psychology will certainly have to be revised. What, then, many will
retort, can be more important for the psychologist than to devote
himself to the investigation of telepathy, to decide whether his
Psychology needs reconstruction or not? The answer is near at hand:
there is no obligation upon any science to reconstruct its basal
principles whenever it is suggested that these are incorrect or
inadequate. It is not the suggestion of their inadequacy that is
significant, but the concrete facts and evidence available to prove
their inadequacy. If a new view can establish itself by its logical
cogency and displace an accepted doctrine, if new facts, adequately
established, make necessary a revision of current generalizations,
no scientist and no science will protest. The present status of
telepathy is simply not a formidable candidate for this distinction.
That the evidence brought forward in proof of telepathy, similarly
to that adduced for "veridical hallucinations," is capable of
psychological interpretation, and also contains interesting
illustrations of obscure and subtle mental processes, becomes evident
to the discerning student, and merits an extended demonstration. It
is in the pursuit of such a demonstration that the psychologist turns
to the records of "phantasms of the living," and of experimental
thought-transference, thereby adding to an already significant and
extensive collection of material illustrative of the influences
of the undercurrents of thought-processes. Yet it is by no means
urged that this is the only phase of utility which the study of
telepathy holds out. That any one who is convinced of his ability to
demonstrate telepathy is free to follow his conviction, will not be
disputed; that in the course of his investigations he may succeed
in revealing the presence of unrecognized forms of mental action,
it would be mere dogmatism to deny. Two things, however, should be
clearly understood; the first, that his data cannot claim serious
attention before they are strong in their validity, and extensive
in their scope, and consistently significant in their structure;
then, and not before, are they ready for the crucible of scientific
logic, from which they may or may not emerge as standard metal,
to be stamped and circulated as accepted coin of the realm. The
second point relates to the status of the obligation to disprove the
telepathic position. This is more often a question of expediency than
of right. If the obligation can readily be discharged, it is usually
desirable to do so, for the reason that the removal of actual error
and misconception is often one of the methods of advancing science;
but there is no burden of disproof resting upon the scientist.
V
That the proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research
contain valuable material in creditable quantity is evident to
any unprejudiced reader; in many ways they are neither so bad nor
so good as they are painted to be. That "psychical researchers,"
though pursuing their labors with different motives, have in one
direction and another contributed to the advance of Psychology, I
have attempted to make clear. Furthermore, the activity of this
Society has been prominent in making the borderland of science
of to-day present a far more hopeful aspect than ever before. It
has substituted definiteness of statement, careful examination,
recognition of sources of error, close adherence to as carefully
authenticated fact as is attainable, for loose and extravagant
speculation, for bare assertion and obscuring irrelevancy. It has
made possible a scientific statement and a definiteness of conception
of problems, even where its proposed solution of them may be thought
misleading or inadequate. But in my opinion the debit side of the
ledger far outbalances the credit side. The influence which Psychical
Research has cast in favor of the occult, the enrollment under a
common protective authority of the credulous and the superstitious,
and the believers in mystery and in the personal significance of
things, is but one of the evils which must be laid at its door.
Equally pernicious is the distorted conception, which the prominence
of Psychical Research has scattered broadcast, of the purposes and
methods of Psychology. The status of that science has suffered, its
representatives have been misunderstood, its advancement has been
hampered, its appreciation by the public at large has been weakened
and wrongly estimated, by reason of the popularity of the unfortunate
aspects of Psychical Research, and of its confusion with them.
Whatever in the publications of Psychical Research seems to favor
mystery and to substantiate supernormal powers is readily absorbed,
and its bearings fancifully interpreted and exaggerated; the more
critical and successfully explanatory papers meet with a less
extended and less sensational reception. Unless most wisely directed
Psychical Research is likely, by not letting the right hand know what
the left hand is doing, to foster the undesirable propensities of
human nature as rapidly as it antagonizes them. Like indiscriminate
almsgiving, it has the possibilities of affording relief and of
making paupers at the same time. Particularly by the unwarranted
acceptance of telepathy as a reality or as a working hypothesis, and
the still more unwarranted use of this highly hypothetical process
as a means of explaining more complex and obscure phenomena, has
it defeated one of the most important purposes which it might have
served.
The popular as well as the more critical acceptance of Psychical
Research, both of the term and of the conceptions associated with
it, has disseminated a totally false estimate on the part of the
public at large of the scope and purposes of modern Psychology;
and has quite possibly given an unfortunate twist to the trend of
recent psychological thought. The right appreciation of scientific
aims and ideals by the intelligent and influential public has come
to be almost indispensable to the favorable advancement of science.
Psychology can less afford than many another science to dispense
with this helpful influence; and no science can remain unaffected by
persistent misinterpretation of its true end and aims. If Psychical
Research is to continue in its present temper, it becomes essential
to have it clearly understood just how far its purposes and spirit
are, and how much farther they are not, in accord with the purposes
and the spirit of Psychology. The optimistic psychologist anticipates
the day when he will no longer be regarded, either in high life or
in low life, as a collector of ghost stories or an investigator of
mediums. The disuse of the unfortunate term "Psychical Research," and
far more, the modification of the conceptions animating this type of
investigation, the pursuit of its more intrinsically psychological
problems in a more truly psychological spirit, and perhaps, most
of all, the disassociation of the term "Psychology" from the
undesirable and irrelevant connotations of Psychical Research, are
all consummations devoutly to be desired.