It illustrated the
copious fallacies which haunt the human intellect. Thus it was
maintained by some persons, and denied by others, that sounds of
unknown origin were occasionally heard in a certain house. These, it
was suggested, might (if really heard) be caused by slight seismic
disturbances. Now many people argue, "Blunderstone House is not
haunted, for I passed a night there, and nothing unusual occurred".
Apply this to a house where noises are actually caused by young
earthquakes. Would anybody say: "There are no seismic disturbances
near Blunderstone House, for I passed a night there, and none
occurred"? Why should a noisy ghost (if there is such a thing) or a
hallucinatory sound (if there is such a thing), be expected to be more
punctual and pertinacious than a seismic disturbance? Again, the
gentleman who opened the correspondence with a long statement on the
negative side, cried out, like others, for scientific publicity, for
names of people and places. But neither he nor his allies gave their
own names. He did not precisely establish his claim to confidence by
publishing his version of private conversations.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25