When much conversation goes on at such seances, only an extremely expert and persevering stenographer can follow the proceedings. But even such a one is quite unable to reproduce mimetic signs in writing. In addition to being an extremely expert shorthand-writer, he must be able not only to decide when he is to insert the word "stop" in his notes, but also the tone in which it was said, and that is hardly possible. In short, even stenographic notes are extremely untrustworthy. In addition to this, most of the minutes are not even taken down in shorthand; or, at least, not in the same way that the proceedings in Parliament are. As a rule, some one, who may possibly be prejudiced, dictates the notes at a seance. Of course, if the person who dictates is prejudiced, and anything occurs that is not in accord with occultistic views, he will involuntarily fail to record it; or, at least, give it no prominence in the report. He will consider such events mere trivialities, whereas they are of the utmost importance to a really objective investigator.

As we have already seen, Crookes has written an account of his experiments with Home, which obviously contains many important additions. But how little value he attaches to these important "trivialities" is best shown by the fact that he omitted them in the first edition; as a natural consequence, this edition has long been the mainstay of spiritists. A second edition appeared later on, which, as Lehmann has shown, entirely contradicts the first, because the "trivialities," which showed how unreliable the whole seance was, were left out in the earlier publication. Spiritists are strikingly reticent about this criticism of Crookes' experiments; at least, they have never attempted to controvert it. This is all the more important because Crookes' experiments were formerly held up as the nonplus ultra of research, and were said to be unimpeachable; If an author leaves out of his account of an event the most important details, even when the latter are mentioned in the official records, it is easy to guess what may happen even in the way in which the records of other cases were originally drawn up.

I have no doubt that the same sort of thing occurs in many cases of thought-transference. Schrenck-Notzing admitted, in reply to some critical remarks which Richet and I had made about his telepathic experiments, that he " did not consider it altogether impossible that some of the published reports were so coloured - unintentionally and involuntarily, of course - as to give a favourable impression of the results obtained." It is particularly important when investigating cases of telepathy and clairvoyance, to notice the different things the mediums have a shot at. Any one can easily observe at such seances that the correct result is only obtained after three or four failures, but that once obtained, the spiritists present are jubilant and suppress any reference to the failures. It is anything but easy to decide to what extent these failures that are so quickly forgotten are considered in the published reports. I certainly surmise that they are left out in numerous cases, and that only the successes are reported, most of which can be explained by the laws of probability, or by a correct combination of the circumstances of the case having been made.

In short, it must not be imagined that the official report of a seance gives an accurate account of what really occurred. For example, a clairvoyante as a rule never gives a consecutive account of anything she is supposed to be describing; she hesitates and pauses until some one present, either by nodding or shaking his head - perhaps unintentionally - gives her the cue that she is on the right track; or some one sighs, which is also a sufficient hint. Griitzner has already very properly emphasized the fact that certain subsidiary details which are of great importance may easily escape the observer. Here we have just the same thing happening as in juggling, in which those of the onlookers who think themselves smartest believe they see everything, whereas they really miss every essential detail. I should like to refer once more to the case of " Clever Hans," because it shows the exact value of these protocols. It is true that Stumpf did not publish the detailed report upon which his fallacious statement was based. But Stumpfs own statement clearly proves that he did not see the most important thing that happened - viz., the signs given to the horse.

If we adhere to the fact that such a thing occurred in the case of a committee over which Stumpf presided, we can make a very shrewd guess as to what happens where other experimenters are concerned. The gentlemen who are supposed to investigate clairvoyance and other mediumistic phenomena are taken in, just as Stumpf was in the case of the horse. When we are assured that the clairvoyantes were acquainted with things that no one else knew, I am compelled to add that the same was said of "Clever Hans"; for example, Herr Grabow, a member of the Council of Education, and one of Stumpfs committeez-men, persistently maintained that "Clever Hans" made correct arithmetical calculations, even when no one present was aware of the problem set

We have also to reckon with the fact that most of the people who make such experiments are lovers of the mysterious and earnestly desire successful results. In such cases everybody sees what he wants to see. I do not intend to blame spiritists, etc., specially in this respect, for it is a matter of daily observation that preconceived notion obscures the view of scientists as well. A few examples will show how easily this occurs in other respects. There are districts in which prayers are offered up for rain when there is a long-continued drought Any one who believes in the efficacy of prayer is easily able to prove to his own satisfaction that such petitions are answered. A second example: I remember a lawyer in Silesia who firmly believed in a preparation for making the hair grow; although nobody could perceive any diminution in his baldness, he was thoroughly convinced that he was putting on a fairly strong fresh growth of hair. He looked in the glass every day, and always thought he could detect fresh, hairs. A third example: Children are convinced that the song, "Fly away, lady-bird!" really makes the insects fly. They keep on singing until the lady-birds fly off of themselves, and then they believe lhat the song was the cause.