THE SEYBERT REPORT Rhetoric, Rationale, and the Problem of Psi Research Elizabeth Schleber Lowry The Seybert Report Elizabeth Schleber Lowry The Seybert Report Rhetoric, Rationale, and the Problem of Psi Research Elizabeth Schleber Lowry Arizona State University Tempe, AZ, USA ISBN 978-3-319-61511-0 ISBN 978-3-319-61512-7 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-61512-7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017944606 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © Pattern adapted from an Indian cotton print produced in the 19th century Printed on acid-free paper This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland A cknowledgements Many thanks to the blind reviewers on this project for their excel- lent advice. I also would like to thank my friends and family for their encouragement and support, and to extend a special thanks to Martin DeMarzo. v c ontents 1 Introduction 1 2 Spiritualism and Scholarship 9 3 Inside the Seybert Report 27 4 Familiar Jugglery 43 5 Boundaries and Legacies 59 6 Spirit Eyes 75 7 Other Worlds 91 8 Conclusion 105 Index 109 vii CHAPTER 1 Introduction Abstract “Introduction” discusses the origins and purpose of the Seybert Commission and the particular terminologies used to discuss psychical research. This chapter considers how the Seybert Commission’s investigation prompted questions about the limitations of the scientific method that challenged materialist attitudes typical of the nineteenth century. Such questions continue to be relevant to this day. Keywords Paranormal · Seybert Commission · Seybert Report University of Pennsylvania · Rhetoric of science · Nineteenth century In 1884, a very unusual committee was formed at the University of Pennsylvania. Comprised of professors from various disciplinary back- grounds, the Seybert Commission was tasked with investigating the mysterious phenomena alleged to arise in Spiritualist séances. In other words, the Seybert Commission was committed to observing and assessing the claims of people who purported to have psychic abilities. The Commission was named after a Philadelphia philanthropist, Henry Seybert, who, in his will, had bequeathed a generous sum of money— sixty thousand dollars—to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. Seybert’s letter specified that the money was © The Author(s) 2017 1 E. Schleber Lowry, The Seybert Report, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-61512-7_1 2 E. SCHLEBER LOwRy to be devoted to the maintenance of a chair in the University of Pennsylvania that shall be known as the “Adam Seybert Chair of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy,” upon the condition that the incumbent of said chair, either individually, or in conjunction with a commission of the University faculty, shall make a thorough and impartial investigation of all systems of morals, religion or philosophy which assume to represent the truth, particularly of Modern Spiritualism. I further empower your Board to invest the said sum of money in such securities, strictly legal or otherwise, as may be deemed best, provided that at all times the interest alone shall be expended for the purpose of maintaining the said Adam Seybert Chair1 Seybert’s letter asks the Commission to “make a thorough and impartial investigation of all systems of morals, religion or philosophy, which assume to represent the truth, particularly of Modern Spiritualism” yet Seybert, having been a staunch Spiritualist, apparently believed that such an inves- tigation would yield “proof” that phenomena allegedly being produced in séances were a result of genuine communication with the spirits rather than sleight of hand. However, the men who formed the Commission were far less credulous than Henry Seybert, and their investigation into “Modern Spiritualism”—which eventually concluded that there was no evidence of spirit communication—came to be fraught with controversy. First, a number of prominent scientists were incensed by the investi- gation because they believed that it dignified superstition and ignorance. Second, the investigation was controversial because it was deemed to reflect a shoddy use of the scientific method and an unprofessional approach to the study of psi. This criticism was leveled against the Seybert Commission both by Spiritualists and non-Spiritualists. Spiritualists were convinced that if the work done by the Commission had been truly impartial, it would have found “proof” that séance phenomena were “real.” Non-Spiritualists felt that, had the Seybert Commission’s investigations been conducted more professionally, Commissioners would have been more successful at convincing Spiritualists that the phenomena produced in the séances were unequivocally fraudulent. The fact that the report failed to persuade either Spiritualists or non-Spiritualists of the Commission’s efficacy, sparked new conversations about the limits of the scientific method, especially with respect to disciplinary boundaries, personal bias, and expertise. The con- troversy also illuminated ways in which “illegitimate” science can help to foster the production of “legitimate” science—in this case, the field that would eventually become experimental psychology. Hence, the Seybert Commission’s work bore lasting implications for academic discourse. 1 INTRODUCTION 3 The Seybert Commission disbanded after just 3 years, and, in 1887, publisher J.B. Lippincott released a volume entitled The Preliminary Report of the Commission Appointed by the University of Pennsylvania to Investigate Modern Spiritualism in Accordance with the Request of the Late Henry Seybert. This “preliminary report” was never followed by any further reports, and the text came to be known simply as “The Seybert Report.” The report is significant, because it documents the first officially recognized university-sanctioned psi research program in the United States. The Seybert Report therefore provides a historical bench- mark for how “scientific” studies of psi have been addressed by academ- ics for well over a century. In his work on the rhetoric of science, Alan Gross writes, “in the pub- lic understanding of science, rhetoric has two distinct roles: it is both a theory capable of analyzing public understanding and an activity capable of creating it.”2 Rhetoric helps us to “create” a public understanding of science by consensus-building via the production of compelling cultural narratives. Rhetoric helps us to analyze public understanding by examin- ing the contexts in which science is constructed—that is, theorizing how and why some areas of study come to be institutionally sanctioned, while others do not. with this in mind, I consider how the alleged production of Spiritualist phenomena was framed as being a scientific practice, and how the search for empirical evidence of spirit communication was pre- sented as a scholarly—and therefore professional—undertaking. Further, I examine the exigency of this rhetorical situation with respect to the Commission’s target audience—the University of Pennsylvania’s Board of Trustees. Seybert Commissioners argue for the importance of continuing to investigate Spiritualist phenomena, but at times, the collaboratively writ- ten Seybert Report also appears to undermine its authors’ claims to have conducted and documented a purely scientific investigation of Spiritualist practices. Such inconsistencies have raised questions as to what counts as science and who decides; the separation between disciplinary discourses within the academy; the possibility of objectivity within the scientific community; and the boundaries of empirical knowledge. The task of forming a conclusion as to whether or not psi phenomena were “real” or “true,” was one that Commissioners themselves eventually admitted was close to impossible—even while they petitioned the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania for funding to continue with their investiga- tion. 4 E. SCHLEBER LOwRy while the Seybert Report is cited in a majority of scholarly works refer- encing nineteenth-century Spiritualism, no project has focused exclusively on the Seybert Report itself. And—to the best of my knowledge—no one has yet examined reports of psi experimentation from a rhetorical perspec- tive. My work considers academic discourse with respect to psi from such approaches as the rhetoric of science (considering how language is used to build consensus among scientists), western Esotericism (considering his- torically marginalized ways of knowing), and scholarship in the history and philosophy of science: In what ways does cultural context determine which scientific practices are considered to be legitimate and which are not? terminology Numerous terms have been used to describe experiences and events that are beyond explanation, for example, “supernatural,” “supernormal,” “the occult,” and “gnosis,” but the most commonly used, or popular, term for such phenomena is “paranormal.” The paranormal is defined by the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP) as meaning “… ‘beyond the normal’ - phenomena for which there is no generally accepted scientific explanation.”3 However, the ASSAP cautions that although, “beyond the normal” is “a good enough working definition…it soon falls apart when you examine it in any detail.” The ASSAP’s primary complaint about this term is that it isn’t specific enough to be useful to a researcher. But there are also other reasons to limit the use of the word. According to Joseph Laycock and Daniel wise: “the label ‘paranormal’ along with similar labels used in religious studies such as ‘metaphysical religion,’ ‘new religious move- ments,’ and ‘the occult’ are not neutral but perpetuate social stigma.”4 Much of this terminology is associated with superstition, which in turn is attributed to a lack of education and intelligence, or to an irrational disposition. Hence, I have chosen to use the terms “psi” and “anoma- lous” because of their relative neutrality. As Jeffrey Kripal explains, once the term “paranormal…took on religious connotations…of a highly het- erodox or occult nature,” British psychologist Robert Thouless began using the term “psi” in an effort to quash bias and to promote an aura of impartiality around the study of anomalous phenomena.5 The term “anomalous” used in conjunction with the words “phenomena” or “experience” is also calculatedly neutral—simply referring to phenomena that cannot be explained by mainstream science.