This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

§ 6. Illustrations of inducing sensations by the agent’s will . . . . 97-99
§ 7. And especially sensations of sight . . . . 99-102
§ 8. The best-attested examples are hallucinations representing the figure of the agent themselves . . . . . 102-110
§ 9. Such cases represent a marked departure from ordinary experimental thought-transference because what the percipient perceives (the agent's form) is not a reproduction of what the agent was thinking about. This seems to preclude any simple physical theory, such as "brain-waves" or sympathetic vibrations. We encounter a similar difficulty later in most spontaneous cases. The rapprochement Original: "rapprochement" (reconciliation/bringing together). of experimental and spontaneous telepathy must be understood as limited to their psychical aspect—a limitation that is easily defended . . . . 110-113
§ 1. When we move to spontaneous telepathy, the nature of the evidence changes; the events are described by people who participated unknowingly, without any thought that they were subjects for scientific study. The method of inquiry must now be the historical method, involving difficult questions regarding the evaluation of human testimony and the complex estimation of probabilities . . . . . 114-115
§ 2. The most common objection to evidence of phenomena beyond science’s recognized scope is that, in a populated world where misobservation and exaggeration are common, evidence can be found for almost any marvel. This objection is often reinforced by references to the superstition of witchcraft, which was supported by a large array of contemporary evidence in quite modern times . . . . . 115-116
However, upon closer examination, we find (1) that the direct testimony came exclusively from the uneducated, and (2) that because the psychology of abnormal and morbid states was universally misunderstood during the "witch-epoch," the hypothesis of unconscious self-deception among witnesses was never considered . . . . . 116-117