Mrs. Piper

In comments, Vitor provided a link to a report published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (Oct 1997, Vol 62, No 849) which casts doubt on Richard Hodgson's well-known work with the Boston medium Leonora Piper. The article can be found in this Word document. The file contains many issues of the Journal; the article in question starts on page 142. Some correspondence relating to the article is found on pp. 286-287 and page 471. (Page numbers refer to the pagination of the Word document, not the pagination of the original publications.)

"Mrs. Piper and 'George Pelham': A Centennial Reassessment," by James Munves, focuses on Hodgson's work with Piper during the period when a "control" (controlling spirit entity) named George Pellew was active. Since Pellew was a real person, his name was changed to Pelham in the report to protect his family's privacy.

Munves says his purpose is not to put the long-dead Hodgson on trial, but he proceeds to do just that, impugning Hodgson's methods, his psychology, and (by implication) his honesty. Since Hodgson's work with Piper is often cited as among the best evidence for mediumship, the article should be taken seriously.

But how true is it? While there are undoubtedly weaknesses in Hodgson's report on the Pelham sittings (as there are in any report), I think Munves has overstated his case in several important respects. For instance, he takes pains to say that Hodgson and his colleagues, including the renowned psychologist and philosopher William James, insufficiently appreciated the role of the unconscious. He writes,

Certain widely-held psychological concepts made the spirit hypothesis more plausible to Hodgson than we would find it today. William James, vastly influential not only in the world of academic psychology, but also in the British and American SPRs, was a student of Consciousness. With psychological reality synonymous with Consciousness, the influence on behavior of Un-Consciousness was beyond consideration.

I think this is hardly a fair characterization of James' attitude. One does not have to be a Freudian to understand that there are levels of consciousness. James was intimately acquainted with the work of pioneering psychological theorist and parapsychologist F.W.H. Myers, who wrote brilliantly of the layers of consciousness. Munves seems to be imputing a degree of naiveté to James and, by extension, Hodgson that is unwarranted.

Having made this assumption, Munves argues that while Mrs. Piper may not have made conscious attempts to gather information, she could have done so unconsciously. And the naive researchers, ignorant of the role of the unconscious, would not have anticipated such a possibility and would be unprepared to guard against it.

A glance at the literature shows that this claim is unfounded. The people who investigated Mrs. Piper and other trance mediums were well aware of the possibility of unconscious deception.

Consider some excerpts from a 1909 book by physicist and psychical researcher Oliver Lodge, titled The Survival of Man. The full contents are online here. Section Four deals with Mrs. Piper. All my quotes from Lodge, William James, and F.W.H. Myers are from this source, and all emphases have been added by me.

Lodge quotes Myers as writing, "The study of trance-utterances, indeed, is at first sight distasteful; since real and pretended trance-utterances have notoriously been the vehicle of much conscious and unconscious fraud."

And here is Lodge himself, discussing Mrs. Piper:

Cheating being eliminated, and something which may briefly be described as a duplex or trance personality being conceded, the next hypothesis is that her trance personality makes use of information acquired by her in her waking state, and retails what it finds in her sub-consciousness without any ordinary effort of memory.

This is precisely the hypothesis that Munves advances, after saying that the turn-of-the-century researchers were blissfully oblivious to it. Munves writes,

Hodgson and his colleagues could not see that, honest as she was, Piper could have sought out information for reasons of which she was unaware, or that what Hodgson called her "fragments of consciousness" could, unknown to Piper, have actively sifted the voluminous information showering Piper's senses, most of which the conscious mind filters out, and kept it filed for future reference.

There is precious little difference between Munves' statement and Lodge's, quoted immediately above.

How could Piper have obtained this information? Munves suggests that conditions surrounding the séances were so lax that the medium could easily have overheard evidential statements made by the sitters. He implies that the naive researchers, because they assumed the entranced Piper could not recollect statements she'd heard before going into trance, allowed sitters to give away vital information during the preliminaries of the sessions. Further, he suggests that the medium, "whose hearing was acute," overheard whispered statements among the sitters while she was engaged in automatic writing.

But is it true that the researchers were this naive - one might say, this grossly incompetent? Let's look at further excerpts from Lodge's book. 

Myers is quoted: "[T]he utterances of Mrs. Piper's trance did in [the investigators'] view unquestionably contain facts of which Mrs. Piper in her waking state was wholly ignorant ..."

William James: "[S]he knows things in her trances which she cannot possibly have heard in her waking state."  

A sitter named G.B. Dorr reported an evidential statement from the medium, purportedly conveyed by the deceased Hodgson acting as control, and added, "it is not a thing of which either he [Hodgson] or I would have spoken to Mrs. Piper, whether in trance or awake."

Dorr reports another evidential detail and says, "Hodgson would have been most unlikely to speak of it to others, certainly not to Mrs. Piper, either in trance or awake."

So it appears that both the researchers and the sitters were well aware that they should impart no information to Mrs. Piper at any time, either before or during her trance.

What about overhearing whispered statements? A hundred years after the fact, no one can rule this out, but consider the precautions routinely taken in Piper's séances. For one thing, the sitters were introduced under pseudonyms. Lodge reports:

Among sitters, I may mention Dr. Gerald Rendall, late of Trinity College, Cambridge, then Principal of University College, Liverpool. He was introduced as Mr. Roberts, and a sitting was immediately commenced ...

Another sitter was Prof. E. C. K. Gonner, then Lecturer on Economics at University College, Liverpool, introduced as Mr. McCunn, another colleague with whom therefore he might on a fraudulent hypothesis be confused.

Note that in the second case, the name of a colleague was given in a deliberate attempt to mislead the medium. (Both sittings produced good evidence.)

Myers is quoted: "We took great pains to avoid giving information in talk; and a more complete security is to be found in the fact that we were ourselves ignorant of many of the facts given as to our friends' relations, etc. In the case of Mrs. Verrall, for instance, no one in Cambridge except Mrs. Verrall herself could have supplied the bulk of the information given; and some of the facts given Mrs. Verrall herself did not know. "

James: "The names of none of us up to this meeting had been announced to Mrs. P.; and Mrs. J. and I were, of course, careful to make no reference to our relatives who had proceeded."

In such an atmosphere, is it really plausible that the sitters would routinely exchange relevant information among themselves while the séance was in progress, on the dubious assumption that the entranced medium couldn't hear them? Should we not credit these people - most of them accomplished, worldly professionals - with a little common sense?

Munves also chides Hodgson for not considering the hypothesis of "muscle-reading," especially since Mrs. Piper liked to hold a sitter's hand. Perhaps Hodgson didn't consider it because the circumstances of the séances often did not lend support this hypothesis. Lodge explains:

I am familiar with muscle-reading and other simulated "thought-transference" methods, and prefer to avoid contact whenever it is possible to get rid of it without too much fuss. Although Mrs. Piper always held somebody's hand while preparing to go into the trance, she did not always continue to hold it when speaking as Phinuit [one of her "controls"]. She did usually hold the hand of the person she was speaking to, but was often satisfied for a time with some other person's, sometimes talking right across a room to and about a stranger, but preferring them to come near. On several occasions she let go of everybody, for half-hours together, especially when fluent and kept well supplied with "relics."

Munves complains that sitters would sometimes lead the medium by supplying bits of information. He sees this as a flaw in Hodgson's methodology. But it was not necessarily a flaw, as long as a clear distinction was maintained between information provided by the sitters and information coming from the medium. In some cases, it seems to have been a necessary part of the procedure, as James remarks:

We took particular pains on this [early] occasion to give the Phinuit control no help over his difficulties and to ask no leading questions. In the light of subsequent experience I believe this not to be the best policy. For it often happens, if you give this trance-personage a name or some small fact for the lack of which he is brought to a standstill, that he will then start off with a copious flow of additional talk, containing in itself an abundance of 'tests'.

Munves suggests that Mrs. Piper's trance was similar to a hypnotic state, in which vast stores of memory could be accessed (so-called cryptamnesia). This, he says, may account for her ability (while in trance) to recognize sitters who had visited her only once before, years ago, and to pick up conversations with them as if no time had passed.

Perhaps. But Piper was hypnotized by James, who found that she was not a very good subject and could only achieve a light hypnotic state. He wrote,

Her condition in this semi-hypnosis is very different from her medium-trance. The latter is characterised by great muscular unrest, even her ears moving vigorously in a way impossible to her in her waking state. But in hypnosis her muscular relaxation and weakness are extreme. She often makes several efforts to speak ere her voice becomes audible; and to get a strong contraction of the hand, for example, express manipulation and suggestion must be practised. The automatic imitations I spoke of are in the first instance very weak, and only become strong after repetition. Her pupils contract in the medium-trance. Suggestions to the 'control' that he should make her recollect after the medium-trance what she had been saying were accepted, but had no result. In the hypnotic-trance such a suggestion will often make the patient remember all that has happened. 

Of course, it's possible that cryptamnesia was a feature of Piper's trance state, even if it differed from hypnotism. But this would hardly explain the variety of information she provided during her decades of work as a medium.

Munves makes much of the fact that the circumstances of Pellew's death are somewhat obscure, with Munves suggesting that the coroner's report was influenced by bribery because Pellew's family wanted to cover up signs of foul play. (The official verdict was that he fell down some stairs and died of head and neck injuries.)  It does appear that the location of Pellew's death was changed so he would not be linked to the disreputable neighborhood in which he actually died.

But Munves goes beyond this, arguing that the coroner's decision to list brain hemorrhage as one cause of death (in addition to a broken neck) is suspicious, inasmuch as the coroner reported no external signs of head trauma. Without an autopsy, how could the coroner surmise a hemorrhage? Munves then argues that there probably was visible head trauma, which the coroner suppressed. Why suppress it? Because head trauma would indicate that Pellew took a beating before he fell, and that his death was not a simple accident.

The payoff of all this is Munves' contention that the "Pelham" control should have corrected the false report, and that his failure to do so is evidence that it wasn't really Pelham/Pellew communicating.

To me, this seems like a rather rickety house of cards. Who knows why the coroner indicated a brain hemorrhage? Perhaps he did see some external sign of trauma and neglected to write it down. Perhaps he was making an educated guess about a hemorrhage because he'd seen it in other, similar cases. Perhaps he was incompetent. Perhaps he was in a rush to finish the report and did a bad job.

It's not clear, in any event, why head trauma would have to be covered up, if it had been observed. Head trauma is fully consistent with a fall down the stairs; merely noting it on the report would not lead anyone to assume foul play. After all, Pellew's neck was broken; why couldn't his skull have been cracked, as well?

And if "Pelham" had reported that his death occurred under circumstances different from the official report, what would that prove? It could easily be argued that the communicator's version of events was false, and the report was accurate - in which case the message would be cited as evidence that "Pelham" wasn't the real deal. 

 Moreover, even Munves' own report of the episode suggests that "Pelham" did know something of the circumstances of his death, at least with regard to the location. Remember, the coroner's report gave an incorrect address. The real address was that of a cigar store that doubled as a gambling den. And in one of the "Pelham" sittings, Mrs. Piper produced the following by automatic writing: "other things I could not or would not have [my father] see, cigar checks ..." '

Munves explains, " 'Cigar checks' were gambling chips, sold in the cigar stores that fronted for the upstairs gambling dens." So "Pelham" was hereby acknowledging that he did frequent gambling dens while alive.

Curiously, Munves goes on to discount this evidence:

Nor was there any hint at the Chapman sitting that the cigar checks were in any way associated with Pellew's death. Yet here, if anyplace, Pellew, had he survived, would have referred to his tawdry end ... One would be tempted to call the 'cigar checks' a reading of Chapman's mind, as Chapman himself thought, except that we know too little of what took place at the sitting ... Hodgson, like everyone else associated with 'G.P.', accepted the newspaper story [i.e., the official report] as true and had no idea what cigar checks were. In commenting on them, Hodgson thought they represented "payment of Club bills".

So here we have a very good piece of evidence - Pelham/Pellew, who in life secretly visited gambling dens that used "cigar checks" as chips, making reference to "cigar checks" as a source of shame, something he didn't want his father to know about. Even Hodgson didn't understand the reference or appreciate its value. Yet Munves rather perversely interprets it as evidence against survival because "here, if anyplace, Pellew ... would have referred to his tawdry end." A "tawdry end," it is worth repeating, that is largely an unproved hypothesis about foul play and a police cover-up.

But what if there was no foul play, and Pellew really did fall down the stairs? If so, why refer to it at all? Just to clear up an incorrect address in the official report? Are we to presume the deceased Pellew even knew the contents of the coroner's report? Or cared if the address was wrong?  

Another example of evidence that seems unjustly downplayed is found in Munves' discussion of "Pelham's" ability to recognize friends from life. Munves concedes the communicator did accurately recognize and remember a great many friends (though with his usual caveats about the laxity of Hodgson's test conditions), but points out that two friends went unrecognized.

[Some] non-recognitions, however, were ignored [in Hodgson's report]: of Richard Welling, one of Pellew's closest Harvard friends, whom 'G.P.' [the Pelham communicator] had repeatedly asked to see. Two other recognitions were dubious: Arthur Carey, and Charles Perkins. 'G.P.' addressed neither by name; but Carey was hailed as 'Arthur' as Piper was coming out of the trance, after 'G.P.' had gone; and 'G.P.' wrote 'Opdyke' and an illegible name before coming up with Perkins, and did not communicate anything to him.

It sounds to me as if there was recognition in the latter two cases: the name Arthur being given accurately in the first instance, and the name Perkins in the second.

More interesting were three recognitions that surprised Hodgson who, therefore, could not be said to have knowingly introduced them. In the case of the Rev. Minot J. Savage, Hodgson had forgotten that Pellew and Savage, as members of the ASPR's committee on mediumship, had attended an attempted sitting with Piper in 1888. The other two surprises were, however, unconfirmed by those recognized. These were a gentleman called 'Smith' and Mrs L. C. Moulton. 'G.P.' claimed to have met 'Smith' at a University Club reception for Fiske in New York. 'Smith' did not remember Pellew, but had been at the reception. Moulton had recited her poetry at a party in Boston that 'G.P.' said Pellew had attended. The 'Smith' and Moulton recognitions are either false claims of acquaintance or evidence of what made Piper fascinating.

Well, they might be "false claims of acquaintance," but the communicator did, after all, correctly report that "Smith" attended a certain reception and that Moulton recited poetry at a Boston party. This seems like good evidence to me, even if the sitters did not recall briefly meeting one person among the many who attended each event.

Finally, Munves criticizes Hodgson's record keeping.

The original records are mainly interesting as a way of seeing how Hodgson used them in preparing the 1897 report. At the most important sitting, for example, that at which 'G.P.' made its first appearance (22nd March 1892), Hodgson concealed that he was not present for some 24 minutes, during the one-fourth of the sitting that included the unprecedented spelling of names of several absent friends and of Pellew."  He insists that he made the notes when, in fact, Heard did so.

The notes are also woefully incomplete, those of the seven 'G.P.' sittings in the spring of 1892 being only 20% the length of those made stenographically in the fall. Nor can the longer stenographic notes be said to be reliably complete. It is not possible for a single stenographer to record the words of the multi-party conversations that often prevailed when more than one sitter was present, nor even to be accurate when just a sitter and the control talked simultaneously. Hodgson therefore had at his disposal a fraction of what was said at the sittings.

I concede that Hodgson should have admitted he was out of the room for part of one séance.  And it's unfortunate that the notes on the spring sessions appear to be incomplete, though there are many other sessions in which stenographic notes were made. I'm not sure the incompleteness of the earlier notes is a major problem, as long as the major evidential details were recorded, but of course complete verbatim transcripts would be preferable.

As for the impossibility of any stenographer recording multi-party conversations, this is no doubt true, but in the era before electronic recording devices, what was Hodgson to do? If the answer is, "Hire multiple stenographers," it should be remembered that Hodgson was chronically short of funds. Is this perhaps why he did not use a stenographer for the spring sessions?

Munves points out some additional reasons to be cautious when assessing Hodgson's report - for instance, Hodgson's emotional connection to one of the purported spirit communicators, which may have compromised his objectivity. This may be a valid concern; more than one psychical researcher has "gone native" and become emotionally attached to the medium. In this case, though, nearly every colleague of Hodgson insisted on his impeccable professionalism. The sole exception Munves can cite is Morton Prince, who felt Hodgson lost his critical faculties in his work with Piper. And Hodgson was hardly the only researcher to work with Piper and come away convinced that the communications were genuine. Did they all go native?

Despite some tidbits of useful information, I find Munves' article, as whole, tendentious and unconvincing. The portrayal of early psychical researchers as hopelessly naive in matters of psychology is a caricature not supported by those researchers' own statements. The assertion that conditions at the Piper séances were criminally lax seems unjustified. The conspiracy theorizing about Pellew's death is doubtful, and the conclusions drawn from it regarding what the communicator "should have said" are even more dubious. Some very good evidence is downplayed or dismissed altogether, while questionable theories about cryptamnesia and unconscious cheating are put forward.

I think it will take more than this to discredit Mrs. Piper - and Dr. Hodgson, too.

Comments

[Keith Augustine]

There was some follow-up in the JSPR (I believe in the file you cite) where there were replies to Munves and Munves' response.

In Munves' response, it is notable that that he says he went into the records of Mrs. Piper as a believer in Mrs. Piper's touted abilities, but got his doubts only after looking into them. The implication is that Hodgson's account of Mrs. Piper's abilities conflicted with, or at least greatly overstated, what the records themselves supported. And I think that Munves provides ample evidence that Hodgson ignored evidence that didn't support his preconceived conclusion that Piper could communicate with the dead, for example in ignoring George Pellew's own family members' negative reactions to the mediumistic messages (i.e., what Piper said didn't ring true as coming from GP to those who knew GP best).

[Michael Prescott]

"The implication is that Hodgson's account of Mrs. Piper's abilities conflicted with, or at least greatly overstated, what the records themselves supported."

That's certainly what Munves concluded - on the basis of the flimsy arguments I summarized in my post.

The follow-up letter from Ian Stevenson and Munves' reply don't add much to the discussion, but for those who are interested, both can be found on pages 286-7 and 471 of the Word document linked in the main post(pagination of the Word document, not the original publications).

I mistakenly wrote that the download was a PDF file; actually it's a Word "doc" file, about 4.6 MB.

[Michael Prescott]

I should have added that after reading Keith's comment, I put in a reference to the follow-up correspondence in the first paragraph of the main post.

[Vitor]

Hi, Prescott

You showed bad and good things in Munve's article, and so I think you wrote a great post. But I think you should publish it also in JSPR, or at least try to contact Munves (but I think both actions it would be the right thing to do), because I think it's important to know his reactions to critics, and to know if he will change his mind or not, or even if he will add something new to the discussion.

Mr. Keith Augustine, I think it's wonderful to have you back in Prescott's blog. I think your comments and articles very importants. Please, appear more times.

Best wishes,
Vitor

[Greg Taylor]

Hi MP,

A good summary of the Munves article I think. There is some great research in there by Munves to unearth some important facets. Overall though I was struck by the same impression of the skeptical approach of isolating incidences to create doubt, when the case as a whole - and there's a lot of evidence/documentation to integrate - is more convincing and difficult to pull down. As with NDEs, no explanation seems to fit the entire collection of reports.

[Michael]

Hello all,

I will start by saying that I really enjoy the blog. In reading about these issues (the paranormal et al) everything is always so polarized: the hardcore skeptics on the one side, and the hardcore believers on the other--it's very difficult to come into this situation and form one's own opinion (which I'm trying to do) because each side takes the facts and interprets them to fit their worldview. Blogs like yours add some perspective by approaching the issue logically and weighing both sides.

My main concern with the Piper case (which I have read on fairly intensely) is simply the time frame. When we look to verify these claims 100+ years after the fact, it just becomes impossible to know. So in this respect I see these historical cases as important for providing background and context with regard to the scientific study of survival...but I have the tendency to cringe when I see them presented as "proof" or "evidence" for the existence of an afterlife. Over so many years, there are simply many details that are difficult to verify, etc.

My question then would be more general--why must our inquiry rest on 100 year old findings? Is it simply that the taboos of mainstream science have become so powerful that the sort of studies done by those scientists (Lodge, Hodgson, James) would be impossible now?

It seems to me that when we look at these experiments and experiences from 100 years ago we see far more in the way of 'proofs' and 'evidence' than we might from modern studies...and this has been troubling me.

[Vitor]

Hi, Michael

I will try to answer your question "why must our inquiry rest on 100 year old findings?Is it simply that the taboos of mainstream science have become so powerful that the sort of studies done by those scientists (Lodge, Hodgson, James) would be impossible now?"

The sort of studies done by those scientists (Lodge, Hodgson, James) ARE impossible now, but for many completly different reasons:

01. In that time (1890-1950) the tests and saveguards were much rigorous than now. The scientists were not limited to ethical questions like today. For example:

a) Piper was submitted to a very painful treatment without knowing this while she was in trance. A scientist who try to do this today would go to prison. These tests can't be replicated today.

b) Piper and her family were followed by detectives and her correspondence was violated. Again, today it would not be ethical to replicate this.

2) In that time there was no computer, no internet, no celular, any kind of eletronic invention that could help mediums to obtain information. Today it's a entirely different world. We can't turn back the time.

Best wishes.

[william]

“It seems to me that when we look at these experiments and experiences from 100 years ago we see far more in the way of 'proofs' and 'evidence' than we might from modern studies...and this has been troubling me.”

Those were different times and people rather than being able to watch TV participated in home circles and this provided the discovery of many more mediums and some of those mediums turned out to be very effective at reaching the other side.

Today’s mediums appear to be much more interested in material gain than some of the great mediums from the past. Check out John Sloan who never asked for money and he was one of the greatest if not thee greatest trance medium that we know of.

“but I have the tendency to cringe when I see them presented as "proof" or "evidence" for the existence of an afterlife.”

From my point of view there is lots of evidence for the existence of an afterlife but absolute proof is a different story. Of course there is no absolute proof that there is no life after death depending of course on our operational definition of proof.

I would never state that I have discovered absolute proof with my research but I would state that the evidence for an afterlife is statistically overwhelming if one cares to look deeply for it with something that even approaches an open mind.

One of my biggest discoveries has been don’t look to the atheist or the religious fundamentalists for that open mind. I have found little difference in the mindset of the atheist and the religious fundamentalist. This came as a surprise to me because when I started this research almost two decades ago I thought the atheist would be the least bias because they would not be hindered by religious dogma.

I find the human mind interesting as the atheist and the religious fundamentalist really don’t care all that much for one another often even demonstrating open hostility and it is my observation they are more alike than different in their ability to be bias and closed minded and self righteous.

Both the atheist and the religious fundamentalist have made their god in their image. I.e. the intellect of their ego. I also suspect we all have done this to some degree.

[Michael Tymn]

"--it's very difficult to come into this situation and form one's own opinion (which I'm trying to do) because each side takes the facts and interprets them to fit their worldview."

Michael (not Michael P) assumes that Hodgson, Lodge, et al were not objective examiners, i.e., they had a worldview that included survival and they were out to make things meet their worldview. It is the same reasoning that Dr. Gary Schwartz mentions when he points out that every time a scientists finds something in favor of survival, the skeptical media assumes they must find a skeptic to counter it. They forget that the scientist theoretcially started as a skeptic and then came to a conclusion. The public, therefore, sees it as a draw in the end, even though the skeptic is only vaguely familiar with the study while the objective scientist, who started as a skeptic, is very familiar with the facts. Is it any wonder that we can't invoke the legal doctrine of Res Judicata (case decided and closed) on those cases of old? William explains why such investigations would be difficult today, but let's assume that they were carried. Why should people 100 years from now accept the findings of today's researchers? At what point do you say "Res Judicata"?

Anyone who is really familiar with Hodgson knows that he set out to debunk Mrs. Piper.

[Michael]

As a clarification, I wasn't assuming that Hodgson, Lodge, et al weren't objective. Quite the opposite, in fact--what makes them so fascinating to me is the way in which their skeptical minds were convinced of the existence of the phenomenon. I find this impressive, and a testament to the work they did.

My point was that (at least at first) it was hard to find outlets on the web that were looking at these concepts in a critical fashion, and not just dismissing or embracing them blindly--and this blog, and others like it, are refreshing to see.

[Greg Taylor]

Michael Tymn wrote:

"Anyone who is really familiar with Hodgson knows that he set out to debunk Mrs. Piper. "

Hi Mike,

I think that's an important point, but it's also my feeling that he was convinced fairly early on by his sittings in the first year (cousin Fred, Jessie etc). And it's easy to see why, the details given are astounding, such as Jessie's eye marking. But given that, we should be careful in saying that Hodgson was always skeptical - I think Munves points out some laxness in Hodgson's later approach and thinking, which Mrs Sidgwick pointed out herself in her own analyses of the sittings decades previous to Munves. Carrington says in his writings that at a later point Hodgson was 'channeling' Imperator et al in his own room himself, which one would think would make for a clouded objectivity!

So I agree that Hodgson *set out* to debunk Mrs. Piper. I just urge caution in applying that thinking to all of the next 18 years or so of his investigation.

[Tony M]

Great post and great comments. My small contribution is this: It is also important to keep in mind that William James was certainly the most brilliant American thinker of his time, and may have also been the most significant American mind ever.

Not that this means he cannot have been wrong, but anyone who has read James's work understands the penetration, the integrity and the constant self-examination in his work. Far from being gullible, he seems to me at times to have bent over backwards to find something other than survival as the explanation for the information obtained through the best mediums.

When Michael above states his concern about 100 year old testimony, I sympathize, But what we fail to grasp is that for a long period of time some of the greatest minds of the age grappled with the questions we discuss here. They attacked these questions with energy and integrity. There simply is no equivalent today (with all do respect to today's brilliant researchers.)

And among those giants, James was probably the greatest mind. It will take a substantial burden of proof to get us to discount his testimony and insights.

[Michael Prescott]

Michael,

It's a small thing, but could you please alter your screen name when you post, perhaps by including a last name or some other identifying detail? There are several Michaels who comment here, including me. It gets confusing.

Thanks.

[Michael Tymn]

"So I agree that Hodgson *set out* to debunk Mrs. Piper. I just urge caution in applying that thinking to all of the next 18 years or so of his investigation."

Greg,

I agree with you, but should we expect such researchers to "sit on the fence" forever, i.e., never take a stand? We can see that with many of the NDE researchers today. Raymond Moody is now a fence sitter, at least in public and Bruce Greyson seems to be the same. No one is saying that they have to go the roof tops and yell, "I am a believer." However, as Neal Grossman has said, all they have to do is say, "The evidence strongly suggests survival," or something to that effect. However, they won't even do that. Greyson says that he is not interested in the survival question, only in how NDE research helps people live better lives today. I suspect it is just his way of protecting himself. God forbid should the university hierarchy think he is investigating such superstitious things as life after death.

Unfortunately, with people like Sir Oliver Lodge, once they came out and expressed a conviction relative to survival, they were labeled "propagandists" rather than scientific ressearchers.

Are we saying that if a researcher at some point begins to believe in the phenomena that he should disqualify himself from further research? Should Hodgson have disqualified himself from further research once he became a believer in Mrs Piper?

[Michael Tymn]

"Hodgson was convinced fairly early on by his sittings in the first year (cousin Fred, Jessie..."

Greg,

An additional thought to the one above: Hodgson was not convinced of survival after that first sitting with Piper. He continued to believe in the the whole "secondary personality," telepathy, teloteropathy, cosmic soul ball of wax. It wasn't until George Pellew started communicating, some five years after his first sitting with Piper, that he accepted the spirit hypothesis. So Hodgson may have been converted to a belief that Piper was not a charlatan early on, but it was some time before he accepted the spirit hypothesis.

But back to the objectivity thing brought up by Michael. If some laboratory decides to undertake a study to determine if cigarette smoking causes cancer, must they employ only researchers who have no opinion or thoughts on the subject? Should they employ an equal number of smokers and non-smokers as researchers to be sure results aren't biased? If the early results suggest there is a positive correlation between smoking and lung cancer are the researchers then biased as they attempt to gather more data to fully confirm the early results? It sure seems that is what some people are suggesting relative to survival research.

Then when all the results are in and strongly suggest that there is a positive correlation between the two, the smoker then points out that his 102-year-old grandmother smoked a pack a day for 80 years and is still going strong with no signs of cancer. That's the type of argument we seem to get by pseudoskeptics in the survival issue.

[Greg Taylor]

Hi Mike (Tymn),

Excellent points and well made. I agree with your sentiments - I was just pointing out a minor quibble, that "Hodgson was out to debunk Mrs Piper" should not be a blanket statement made to the entire testing period.

[http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2009/05/further-record-of-observations-of.html]

This was the comment that vitor was replying to:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2009/05/from-the-files-touching-heaven.html?cid=6a00d83451574c69e2011570b969f2970b#comment-6a00d83451574c69e2011570b969f2970b

Why does the controversy generates so much more discussion, even among believers, than Hodgson's results?

I've read a lot about the evidence for the afterlife and I've never seen this mentioned before: That Hodgson came to believe in survival because characteristics of the communicaton varied with the communicators not the sitters. This to me seems like a very important result that has been hidden for 100 years. It is significant because it is a very strong rebuttal not just to the telepathy hypothesis which Hodgson used it against but also against super-psi which he had not even begun to consider. The original comment has a link to my blog post where I discuss the matter in more detail. There are also links to Hodgson's report in the PSPR at google books.

[Jime]

Excellent post Michael.

I fully agree with your conclusion: "I find Munves' article, as whole, tendentious and unconvincing".

I'd add that that kind of criticisms, instead of refuting the case, may consolidate it in the eyes of a neutral observer. If that's all the critic got to debunk the case, then it offers us another reason to think that, possibbly, the case is indeed good.

Mr. Keith Augustine, I think it's wonderful to have you back in Prescott's blog. I think your comments and articles very importants. Please, appear more times

Although I strongly disagree with most of Keith's arguments and articles, I fully endorse Vitor's comment about being good the participation of Keith in this blog.

I'd like to see Keith posting here more oftenly.

[Barbara]

"I'd like to see Keith posting here more oftenly."

Not sure why. His views on this topic are well known and have been refuted by Chris Carter.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/carter/augustine.htm

Still, if you like the record, I'm sure he can keep playing it for you.

[Bharat]

Barbara: I agree theoretically, the standing of his arguments were lowered by Carter but questioning our ideas, thoughts, conclusions and interpretations is always needed, surely? I - for one - believe Mrs Piper's abilities were real and the survival hypothesis is valid but I'm glad Mr Augustine brought up the question of the reaction of G.P.'s relatives.

One of your best posts here, Michael Prescott. Hats off.

[dmduncan]

The nature of reasonable presumptions is that you don’t draw conclusions from them too strongly; if you do, you are laundering presumptions. That is, it is reasonable to make certain presumptions provided that you do not deny they are possibly false; making strong conclusions from weak premises violates this obligation. The necessity of making weak conclusions from reasonable presumptions follows from the inconclusiveness of the data that leads to the presumption itself. Hence, the conclusion itself must be weak, not strong.

If you at first make a reasonable presumption and later try to slide from reasonable presumptiveness into hard conclusiveness (hoping that no one notices?) it’s no longer reasonable. Then you are reasoning dogmatically, not to mention that changing the stringency of conclusions in midstride of an argument is a form of equivocation.

Which, of course, we can add to the list of logical violations already committed in the interests of skepticism and materialism.

But who’s counting?

[Zetetic_chick]

Barbara: I agree theoretically, the standing of his arguments were lowered by Carter but questioning our ideas, thoughts, conclusions and interpretations is always needed, surely?

I also agree that Carter made an excellent reply to Keith's main points.

But as Bharat said, questioning and reflecting about these problems, or about Keith's position, is not a bad idea.

I haven't been impressed by any of Keith's philosophical arguments in defense of the production hypothesis; but some of his criticisms, like in the Pam Reynolds case, are interesting (even though not enterily convincing, in my opinion).

I think the point is letting Keith to express his best arguments in this blog, what will enable us to give them a proper critical evaluation (as it has been made in the Rovin thread)

Understading the best arguments for the positions we disagree with is not bad.

We're attempting to find the truth, and we have to be familiar with the best arguments and positions of our intellectual opponents.