cidental hallucinations may be much greater, owing to the operation of forgetfulness, than the census would indicate; on the other hand, there may have been much more exaggeration in the coincidences than we have allowed for.
It is scarcely conceivable that any error in our estimate of the rate of forgetfulness should be sufficient to affect the conclusion to a material extent. To adopt the alternative explanation is to assume, not merely that our informants generally have been guilty of serious inaccuracies, but that the alleged "percipients," together with their friends who have furnished corroborative testimony, have given detailed reports of incidents which never took place, and that in some cases notes have been made in diaries supporting these fictitious reports. In other words, we have to suppose the occurrence of numerous hallucinations, not of sense but of memory, shared in many cases by several members of a household. Such an assumption is perhaps not inconceivable; but it involves violent improbabilities, and it can scarcely at present claim any external support. At any rate those who carefully weigh the evidence will, no doubt, agree that neither assumption will justify us, without further enquiry, in summarily dismissing the incidents reported.[1]
But even if a causal connection between the
- ↑ For full details of the estimates cited in the text, the reader is referred to the "Report of the Census Committee," Proceedings, S. P. R., vol. x., pp. 207–251.
