Phantasms of the Living, Vol. I

personal acquaintance with the witnesses, the effect of which it is impossible to communicate . . . . . 159-161

§ 17. An all-important point is the number of coincidences adduced. A few might be accidental, but it is impossible to apply that hypothesis to them all. Nor can the evidence be dismissed by a general appeal to the unreliability of human testimony. If it is to be explained away, it must be met in detail, as we have endeavored to do; this necessitates confronting the single cause, telepathy (whose à priori Original: "à priori" (from theoretical deduction rather than observation). improbability is fully admitted), against a multitude of causes that are cumulatively incredible . . . . . . . . 161-164

§ 18. Despite their differences, the recorded cases show signs of belonging to a true natural group. Their harmony—both in what they do and do not present—is unlikely to be the accidental result of disconnected mistakes. It is noteworthy that certain sensational and suspicious details, which often appear in poorly evidenced cases, are conspicuously absent here; these are precisely the details the telepathic hypothesis would not cover . . . . . 164-166

§ 19. While some may consider this cumulative argument for spontaneous telepathy as a proof, the evidence is not of an éclatant Original: "éclatant" (striking/dazzling). sort; much of it falls short of the ideal standard. Still, we have likely done enough to justify our undertaking and to broaden the foundation for future inquiry . . 166-169

§ 20. The evidence is not a chain of links, but sticks in a faggot A bundle of sticks, used here to suggest that individual weak pieces of evidence gain strength when bundled together.. It is impossible to specify the exact number of sticks needed for a solid faggot, but this collection is at least an installment of what is required . . 169-170

§ 21. The instinct for how much evidence is needed differs greatly between a mind that has realized the facts of experimental telepathy (Chap. II) and one that has not. Between the two branches—despite a difference as great as that between lightning and the static electricity of amber—the great psychological fact of a supersensuous influence of mind on mind constitutes a true generic bond . . . . . 171-172