News

Harvard Alumni Email Forwarding Services to Remain Unchanged Despite Student Protest

News

Democracy Center to Close, Leaving Progressive Cambridge Groups Scrambling

News

Harvard Student Government Approves PSC Petition for Referendum on Israel Divestment

News

Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang ’05 Elected Co-Chair of Metropolitan Mayors Coalition

News

Cambridge Residents Slam Council Proposal to Delay Bike Lane Construction

A Reply to Mr. Gross

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

If Mr. Gross will more carefully consider the editorial on the work of Sir Oliver Lodge printed in the CRIMSON of Feb. 13th, he will see that the CRIMSON did not state what it believed to be the "scientific status of investigations of the supernormal as expounded by Sir Oliver Lodge." The CRIMSON only stated that "It was refreshing to see an eminent psychologist take a stand against Lodge." And this most certainly Professor Hall did in his article printed in the Boston Herald.

Nowhere did the CRIMSON deny that men, "whose reputations demand for them respect," had investigated the phenomena of psychical research. The merit of these investigations is a question on which a difference of opinion exists. And Professor Hall's side of the case is worth our hearing.

I think that everyone who is at all conversant with the subject of psychical research understands that Lodge, and all others seriously interested in the study, place very small importance on the phenomena produced by mediums. The study is far deeper that that; but the status of the CRIMSON editorial of February 13th merely echoes the feeling of sceptism on this point held, even by Sir Oliver Lodge. The aim of the editorial, it seems to me, was not so much to instruct men already familiar with the subject of Sir Oliver's research, but rather to give to those who know little about it, the view of a practical opponent.

In passing over the "reverse conclusions of such men as Dr. Hyslop" it seems to me that the CRIMSON was justified. The editorial is clearly not a discussion of the whole subject of spiritism; it is a word lauding one who is willing to state his views in opposition to so famous an investigator as Lodge.

The trouble with Mr. Gross's complaint is chiefly that he sought in the editorial misnamed perhaps, 'Spiritism,' a complete discussion of the subject. In my view the editorial is but a sidelight reflecting what it considers to be a worthy stand right or wrong taken in opposition to the doctrines of Mr. Lodge.  S. N. STEVENS '20.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags