TCDE-Team at 17:33, 9 December 2022

2022-12-09T17:33:19Z

New page

''Critics of Spiritualism'' is an article written by [[Arthur Conan Doyle]] published in the [[Evening Standard]] on 19 february 1923.

== Critics of Spiritualism ==
[[File:evening-standard-1923-02-19-p5-critics-of-spiritulalism.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Evening Standard]] (19 february 1923, p. 5)]]

''' 'THE FALSE FRONT OF REACTIONARY SCIENTISTS': WHERE IGNORANCE IS ARROGANT.'''

'''By Sir ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE, M.D., LL.D.'''

I see from his article that Mr. Arthur Lynch has been reading Professor Oesterreich's "Occultism and Modern Science." As it happens, I am occupied in perusing the same excellent book.

But Mr. Lynch finds it so extravagant that he says "I laughed lest I should be forced to weep." I, on the other hand, having personally tested some of Professor Oesterreich's statements, and in some cases used the same mediums, know that his whole view is an understatement of the facts, and that to reach anything like what I know from my own experience to be the truth he would have to make a considerable advance.

But consider the general position. Here we have an array of men of science who have gone deeply and carefully into the matter. I will only mention Lombroso, Crookes, Lodge, Barrett, Richer, Zollner, James. If, as Mr. Lynch seems to imply, the scientific man is for some reason a bad reasoner or observer, let me add such names as Victor Hugo, Sardou, Thackeray, Mrs. Browning, and a hundred more.

'''"CONSIDERED OPINIONS."'''

All of them have examined, all of them have written their considered opinions, all of them have in various degrees, proportionate to their experience, agreed as to the reality of these psychic effects.

And then there comes Mr. Arthur Lynch, who, to do him justice, sail, under no false colours, and does not pretend that he has had any personal experience of the matter, or is actuated by anything save prejudice and incredulity. Why should he, who has not been present and has not seen, "laugh to save himself from weeping" at the reports of those who were present and who did see?

A courteous attitude of questioning is natural enough, but do I exaggerate when I describe such an article as that of Mr. Lynch as "the arrogance of ignorance"?

I will take the instance of the pseudo-podia of ectoplasm which seem to amuse Mr. Lynch. He appears for some reason to imagine that "pseudopodia" is a modern expression, whereas it is as old as Huxley in expressing protrusions from a jelly-like mass.

Does ectoplasm exist? I can show two hundred photographs of it taken with every precaution by men of science. Does Mr. Lynch think that these are all senseless fakes? It may be news to him that within the last few months Dr. von Schrenck-Notzing has demonstrated ectoplasm to 100 men of science, including 23 professors of German Universities, the names of whom will be found in a list published in the last number of the "Revue Metapsychique," of Paris.

'''"ALL WERE SCEPTICS."'''

All these mene were sceptics and most of them opponents before this demonstration, and all now declare themselves to be satisfied. What is Mr. Lynch's opinion worth compared to such testimony as this, and why should he "laugh to prevent himself from weeping." If some of us attach more importance to such pronouncement than to his individual opinion?

This final establishment (for to all reasonable men it can he nothing less) of the reality of ectoplasm is very welcome to those of us who, like myself, feel that our personal honour in touched, since we have publicly declared that we have seen and handled this strange evasive substance, where all deception was impossible.

In the ease of Eva I saw it in good light, I pressed it between, Its finger and thumb, and I felt the curious living thrill which is characteristic of it.

I can understand that those who have not had such an experience should still be agnostic upon the matter. It is only the arrogant and contemptuous ignorance against which I protest — the same ignorance which has derided every fresh advance from Copernicus to Mesmer and from Messner to Darwin, and yet can never learn the lesson of humility.

'''THE NAKED FOOT.'''

It is one of the characteristics of our opponents that while they rightly demand accuracy in us, they can never by any chance give an accurate narrative themselves. Let me take an example from Mr. Lynch. He says, "Eusapia's foot was suddenly seized" in a seance, upon which she very naturally screamed, and this in some unexplained way is construed into fraud.

If anyone will consult page 91 of Oesterreich's book he will find that Mr. Lynch has suppressed the whole point or the story, which is that what the man grasped was a naked foot, and that on the lights bring turned up — which presumably was at once — Eusapia was found to be fully clad.

Thus the incident, instead of being evidence of fraud, becomes, when the story is told accurately, a case where there is some evidence for the existence of those pseudopodia which seem to Mr. Lynch to be so comic.

These sneering articles belong really to the 19th and not to the 20th century, for the subject has made such advances and has established itself upon so firm a foundation that the man who denies psychic phenomena has been described by Professor Hyslop as "either ignorant or a moral coward."

'''"ABSURDITY OF DENIALS."'''

In the very nature of things, since men are many men are many and physical mediums few, it is difficult to give demonstrations to all, save by photographs. At the same time, we do not all possess telescopes, and yet we are prepared to accept the observations of those who do.

Thus it will be in psychic research, and the full absurdity of these denials will finally force itself upon the public. Personally, I am not sorry to see the process a gradual one, for quick convictions make equally quick reactions.

When I consider how many years it took me to unlearn my materialism and to comprehend the truth, I can blame no one else for being deliberate. I only protest when I see a grave subject being treated with ignorant levity, and the gossip of a conjurer in a smoking-room being quoted against the formed opinions of serious thinkers.

'''WHAT CONJURERS SAY.'''

With all deference to the conjuring fraternity, some of whom are my personal friends, they bulk too large in this dispute. Mere manual dexterity does not confer upon a man the intellectual power necessary to deal with a great question, nor give him the right to treat with ridicule the men who have devoted years of their lives to these studies.

My remark is prompted by the fact that both Mr. Maskelyne, in England, and Mr. Houdini, in America, have declared of late that they could do anything which any medium can do. If I were disposed to put so absurd an assertion to the test I would ask them first to raise up the face of my mother clearly in front of me in the presence of other witnesses who knew her. I should then ask them to allow me to discuss private family matters with my "dead" brother, he mentioning, in his own voice a person he was interested in in Copenhagen, whom I had never heard of but whom I found to exist.

I would then ask for a convincing interview with my own "dead" son, and finally to widen the field I would ask the conjurer to trace out the outline and details of a chapel buried many feet below the ground as has been done at Glastonbury, as recorded in Mr. Bligh Bond's "Gate of Remembrance." I could suggest many other tests, but these would probably suffice.

'''FRAUDULENT MEDIUMS.'''

Dr. Lynch talks largely of the "exposure" of Paladino and other mediums. There have certainly been fraudulent mediums, or mediums who eked out psychic power by tricks, and no condemnation can be too severe for such blasphemous rascals. But the matter has been enormously exaggerated, and one could write an instructive article upon the "exposure of exposures." The medium is practically outside the law, and anyone may bait him, though when his powers are true he is the most useful at well as the most sensitive member of the whole community.

There was a "recent exposure" of Hope, the photographic medium, which was examined by a strong independent committee of 14 members, of whom I was one. We came to the ''unanimous'' conclusion that it was the medium who had been tricked, and yet the legend that he has been exposed will no doubt pass into history and slur the psychic record of 17 years of wonderful demonstrations.

So with Paladino. She was said to move objects by means of a white hair. She had no white hair and none was ever seized, but the story has been constantly quoted. We know now that a white filament of ectoplasm passing from finger to finger would have had just such an appearance. This was not known at the time. Thus it may be our own ignorance and not the medium which causes misapprehensions.

It is right that we should endure criticism, but we have had seventy years of it, and it is time that the world got through all that false front of reactionary scientists, bigoted clergymen, superficial conjurers, and interested "exposers," so that they may penetrate to the real subject, which is infinitely the most important which the world has ever known.

I would say in conclusion that I have nothing but personal good feeling for Dr. Arthur Lynch, and have every respect for his activities as soldier and author. But he must enlarge his views and knowledge as to the possibilities of the universe.

A. CONAN DOYLE.

----
* [[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:Complete Works|Back to Complete Works]]
* [[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle|Back to Conan Doyle]]

Critics of Spiritualism - Revision history

TCDE-Team at 17:33, 9 December 2022