Research source

It is a different thing to say that hallucination might account for the facts, and saying that the facts tell…

Date of account: Published 1921
Source: The Problems of Psychical Research Experiments and Theories in the Realm of the Supernormal
Reference: The Problems of Psychical Research Experiments and Theories in the Realm of the Supernormal · selected passage 155
Rights: public_domain
Language: English
Record updated: 2026-08-24

Record summary

It is a different thing to say that hallucination might account for the facts, and saying that the facts tell in favour of hallucination

Published source text

Read the available text below. Archive transcriptions may contain OCR errors; later context is labelled separately. A recorded claim is not a finding that it happened.

Source passage

Source text · mention only

I cannot agree with this. It is a different thing to say that hallucination might account for the facts, and saying that the facts tell in favour of hallucination. Chance might account for an experimental apparition, but the fact that the apparition occurred does not prove it to be chance. One must be careful to distinguish facts and inferences, in a case of this character. Whether or not the hands were hallucinatory will depend, not upon _a priori_ probability, or the fact they were visible to some, invisible to others, (for all this might just as well be accounted for on the opposing theory), but upon the fact that, so far as we know, there is no analogy whatever between this oft-recorded event and any of the phenomena of suggestion known to us. If we offer a theory to explain certain facts, it must not only explain them in a rational manner, but must dovetail into what we know--into _the known_. That is the whole method of science.

Historical context

Contextual commentary · mention only

This comes from historical psychical research. Methods, witness handling and standards of evidence differ from present-day research and should be assessed from the cited passage and edition.

Modern context

Contextual commentary · mention only

The passage can support a history of claims and recurring descriptions. It does not establish a paranormal mechanism, and competing psychological, social and physical explanations remain relevant.

Investigate related details with Anomaly Graph’s account-based search, or read how matching and provenance work.