Note AF — Chapter V · EXPLANATION OF THE OBSERVATIONS

General Noizet[79] has left us a story of the middle of the last century, which in essential detail corresponds closely with the one just given. The scene is a French chateau and the hero is—a rapping table, highly prized on account of the intelligent answers it could give. Seated about it were a number of ladies and at the other end of the room sat a French savant, a member of the Academy. The ladies requested him to put a simple mathematical question to the table, and complying with their request, he asked for the cube root of 4. None of the ladies who sat about the table knew the solution; the table unhesitatingly gave 6 raps. This answer was refused as incorrect. The table was asked to try again, and again it wrapped 6. For this it was bitterly reproached. Hereupon the questioner, who during the whole time had remained in his place at the other end of the room, came forward with the confession that the table was innocent, that he had made a mistake. He had asked for the cube root of 4, but had really meant to ask for the cube of that number, viz., 64, and the table had as a matter of fact given the first numeral of that number.

One is immediately struck by the analogy between this case and that of Professor Schillings. In both cases those immediately concerned (the women in the one, Mr. von Osten in the other) believe that a wrong answer is being given repeatedly. The cause of the error lies in a person who seemingly is not concerned with the response. (The Frenchman asked the question, but did not sit at the table. Professor Schillings sounded the notes, but it was Mr. von Osten who got the horse to tap.) In both instances the questioner asks one thing, but had something else in mind. (With the Frenchman it was a slip of the tongue; Mr. Schillings did it purposely.) And finally, in both cases the response corresponds not to the question that has been asked, but to that which has been thought, so that, though seemingly wrong, the responses of both table and horse were really correct. By way of explanation, Noizet believes that he has a case of true thought-transference or "telepathy" (page 108). The questioner watched with utmost attentiveness the rapping of the table, and the women in turn regarded the man. And thus, Noizet believes, the man's thought was transferred to the minds of the others without the mediation of eye or ear, etc., and hence unvitiated by the words that had been spoken. I myself prefer another explanation. At that moment in which the rapping arrived at the expected number, the Frenchman executed a movement characteristic of release of tension and to this the women of the circle reacted. It was not necessary that they should be able to account for this afterward, (just as sometimes occurs in the case of thought-readers[80]). It is very probable, too, that they were not of a very reflective turn of mind anyway. We are warranted, I think, in regarding the two cases as identical in kind.