Vladislav Razdyakonov

Mapping Imagination on the Borders of Science: Quest for Universal Unity at the Turn of the 19th - 20th Centuries

Vladislav Razdyakonov - Associate Professor, Center for the Study of Religion, Russian State University of Humanities (Moscow). razdyakonov.vladislav@gmail.com

Drawing upon latest studies in the history of parascience, this review article demonstrates crucial differences between its main branches at the turn of the 19th century. The author calls for a careful approach in using "presentist" historical methodology and highlights the motivations of both scientists and those labeled "stepchildren of science", who tried to find universal principles regulating the processes in the world of nature. The degree in which scientific ideas correlate with personal value biases may be used as a possible criterion for demarcating the boundary between scientific and parascientific discourses.

Keywords: parascience, history of science, parapsychology, modern spiritualism, occultism.

page 297
Book Review:

Oppenheim, J. P. (1985) The Other World. Spiritualism and Psychical Research in England, 1850 - 1912. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - 503 p.

Wolffram, H. (2009) The Stepchildren of Science. Psychical Research and Parapsychology in Germany. Amsterdam - New York: Rodopi. - 342 p.

Lachapelle, S. (2011) Investigating Supernatural. From Spiritism and Occultism to Psychical Research and Metaphysics in France, 1853 - 1931. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. -198 p.

OVER the past few years, the West has published several academic monographs devoted to the analysis of the cultural context of the late XIX-early XX century and revealing the logic and dynamics of the development of "parascience". The review nature of these works makes it possible to create a map of the main ideas of near-scientific groups, demonstrating the similarities and differences that existed between them, primarily in their attitude to the images of "science" and "scientific community"they construct.

The majority of Russian-language publications devoted to the topic under consideration are still dominated by normativistic judgments that refer all the diversity of near-scientific groups to a single category of "pseudoscience" and do not differentiate between them. Without disputing the possibility and, in some cases, the necessity of using such a presentist approach, it should be recognized that in order to demonstrate the complex nature of historical relations, including the history of the formation and struggle of scientific ideas, it is necessary to be able to hear the voices of all participants in the historical process. Peer-reviewed works fully allow us to form a holistic view of the views of those whose ideas, although popular at the turn of the century, were never in demand by the scientific community.

* * *

The 19th century is rightly considered to be the century of the triumph of scientific knowledge. Science, put on a technological track, has managed to radically transform the daily life of educational institutions.-

page 298
It has naturally become the main epistemological reference point for Europeans.

The invention of new technologies, being highly appreciated by the state and capital, gave scientists access to significant financial and organizational resources. The growth of their influence contributed to the acceleration of the formation of the scientific community, which began in the XVI century with the international "republic of scientists" and ended in the XIX century with the creation of many national academies. Soon enough, the scientific community needed clear criteria for the demarcation of scientific and non-scientific knowledge to legitimize its newfound power.

Already in the first half of the XIX century, the first scientific philosophy was published - the positivism of O. Comte, who proclaimed the scientific method to be the only way to obtain objective knowledge. Positivist philosophy, which has attracted much criticism since its inception, dominated the intellectual field of the scientific community throughout the 19th century and still serves as the starting point for many scientists ' arguments about the essence, development and purpose of scientific knowledge. The survival of the basic principles of this philosophy, rooted in the empirical tradition, comes from their simplicity and clarity, while their rationalistic criticism is still perceived quite in the spirit of positivism, which divided the history of man's relationship to the world into three stages - "theological", "philosophical" and "scientific" - as fruitless scholastic philosophizing.

It was within the framework of the philosophy of positivism that the question of the criteria for the demarcation of scientific knowledge was particularly acute. If we look at the history of science from the perspective of cultural history, we will see that the entire second half of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries are spent trying to discover the theoretical differences between scientific and non-scientific knowledge. Brought to life for political, social and economic reasons, the practice of "demarcation" soon became a significant means for ostracizing scientists who refused to play by the rules of the game established in the scientific community.

One of the most striking examples of such "heretical scientists" can be considered those who, having taken a certain position in the scientific community due to their discoveries, considered an experiment for themselves-

page 299
the existence of the spirit world has been proven experimentally. Their opponents rightly pointed out that the scientific achievements of "heretical scientists" in various fields of scientific knowledge cannot legitimize their "mediumistic" experiments. However, the "heretical scientists" themselves, or, as they were called in Russia, "spiritualists", continued to insist that, for example, sitting at a table in the living room, they are doing exactly the same thing as in the laboratory - science. They argued quite in the positivist spirit - all their research is based on facts obtained as a result of observations, and in some cases confirmed by experiments that test the viability of their "spiritualistic" hypothesis.

Attempts to scientifically prove the reality of objects of faith, as well as the desire to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific knowledge, go back at least to the XVII century. The essence of the Scientific Revolution, about which many copies were broken, seems to have been the acceptance by the emerging scientific community of a fundamental epistemological principle that postulates the existence of a boundary between knowledge obtained logically and empirically based on experiment, and knowledge that is speculative or symbolic. The main rival of the emerging science, according to many practitioners at that time, was magic, and, apparently, through opposition to it, science for the first time begins to define itself.

At the very dawn of Modern times, there was no fundamental distinction between magic and science, since both claimed to open up knowledge of the natural causes of things and events. However, as the English researcher J. R. R. Tolkien points out, Henry, in the course of the Scientific Revolution, the scientific community constructed an image of "magic" that allowed an epistemological boundary to be drawn between the new "scientific" practice that reveals "reality" and the old "magical" practice.1 From this point on, "magic" becomes a kind of "cultural and social underground "double of science.,

1. Henry J. Smith Inclusion of Occult Traditions in Early Modern Natural Philosophy: A New Approach to the Decline of Magic//State, religion, and Church in Russia and abroad. 2013. N 1. P. 100

2. Vizgin V. P. Hermetic Tradition and Scientific Revolution: towards a new interpretation of the thesis by Frances A. Yates//State, religion, and Church in Russia and abroad. 2013. N 1. pp. 92-100.

page 300
while the event of their separation can be considered as the source of the Western European esoteric tradition.

When we speak of the esoteric tradition in this context, we are referring not so much to secret associations as to teachings and practices aimed at removing the oppositions that have become a characteristic feature of the Modern project - reason and faith, science and religion, matter and spirit. Such a harmonious synthesis could be conceived as the goal of a long path of development of the human spirit, and as an alternative to "materialistic science" and "groundless faith"that has always existed. The ideal of the esoteric tradition remained the idea of the harmonious unity of man and the cosmos-an ideal rejected by science, which placed nature at the service of human interests and needs and considered it only as an object for experimentation.

At the same time, it should not be forgotten that the separation of science, religion, and magic that has taken place since the beginning of Modern times was caused by the desire to find a single epistemological basis that could overcome the cultural and religious differences in Europe. The segregation of science meant the allocation of a platform that was free from doubt and provided a space for dialogue in the common language of nature for all people. Science itself - in its value dimension-was conceived as a project for the unity of all mankind, although in order to achieve it, it was necessary to leave a significant number of practices and teachings beyond the demarcation line. First of all, all those who believed that particular statements can be more important and convincing than the general and universal principles that scientific knowledge reveals were beyond this line.

Gradually, religious statements and magical practices are being recognized as "imaginary" and "nonexistent" by more and more people. The most popular explanation for the former "miracles" is deception in the XVIII century, to which hallucination, suggestion and hypnosis were added in the XIX century with the development of psychology. The only real and authentic knowledge is science, which discovers the universal laws that govern the world, and separates the space of the known cosmos from the irrational chaos of the imaginary that lies beyond its borders.

The most striking events in the history of the division of science, religion and magic are connected with violations of the demarcation line between the "real" and the"imaginary". Presumably, these violations occur regularly, recurring from time to time,

page 301
perhaps with a certain frequency. One of the peaks of these violations occurred in the second half of the 19th century, when the process of institutionalization of science accelerated and the concepts of "science", "religion", and "magic" were fixed in public discourse, which quickly became a bargaining chip in disputes about the relationship between scientific and non-scientific knowledge. It is at this time that various near-scientific movements become a significant part of the cultural context of the era.

* * *

In Western historiography, the near-scientific movements of the 19th century are often considered in two contexts: in the context of the so-called "Victorian crisis of faith" caused by the development of scientific knowledge, and in the context of the institutionalization of science and the professionalization of the scientific community. The first approach-philosophical and historical - dominated Western historiography for a long time, until, approximately from the 70s of the XX century, it was replaced by the sociological approach, to which all peer-reviewed books pay tribute.

The origins of the first approach are rooted in the ideology of the French Enlightenment, which was later reworked in the framework of the theory of secularization. This modernist approach assumed a gradual weakening of the influence of religion and the strengthening of science and the scientific method as the only way to obtain reliable information about the world around a person. By the 1970s, this approach, thanks to a religious revival that called into question the irreversible nature of the secularization of Western culture, required a significant adjustment. Such social phenomena as the spiritualistic movement, which were previously considered evidence of a "crisis of faith", began to be considered as manifestations of one of the stages in the evolution of religion, which has an independent specificity and logic of development. In other words, religion has not weakened, but has taken on new forms, responding to the rationalization of the world and the scientific and technological challenge of our time.

It should be recognized that this approach is not very popular among modern researchers of the issue. At the same time, considering the spiritualistic movement as part of the response of Western culture to scientific and technological progress would allow us to come closer to understanding the specifics of the culture of the second half of the XIX century. It was at this time that I created-

page 302
This is the conceptual framework of Modernity, which still determines the answers of most people to many questions on the current agenda.

The dominant position in historiography is occupied by the sociological approach, which considers near-scientific movements in the context of their relationship with the scientific community. Formed in the wake of the development of the post-positivist philosophy of science and social constructivism, this approach avoids the use of value judgments, which are still, in particular, popular among some Russian authors who write about "pseudoscience". Revealing the mechanism of scientific authority formation, this approach largely allowed us to give a new answer to the question of what exactly educated Europeans of the second half of the XIX century considered "science".

J. Oppenheim emphasizes that by the second half of the XIX century, no official institutions capable of giving a unified scientific assessment of a scientist's activity had yet been formed in science. Listing various examples of the institutionalization of science, she notes that for the most part, none of them "implies a single canon of scientific respectability, a single cursus honorum, a deviation from which would be considered unacceptable."3. Despite the attacks of the public and scientific press, such scientists as W. Crookes, J. Reilly, J. Thomson, W. Huggins, who took part in" psychical research", could simultaneously hold the post of president of the Royal Society of London. Thus, the enemy in the face of the scientific community, which Oliver Lodge referred to as "orthodox science", was largely constructed by the "heretical scientists" themselves.

It is characteristic how close this definition of "orthodox science" is to what T. Kuhn would later call "normal science", and how close K. Kuhn is to what he would later call "normal science". Popper "dogmatism". The construction of such a confrontation was absolutely necessary in order to build protective epistemological boundaries around knowledge that claims to carry out a revolution in science. Thus, we find ourselves in the world of the social imaginary of "heretical scientists", and in fact-in the world of "extraordinary science",

3. Oppenheim, J. P. (1985) The Other World. Spiritualism and Psychical Research in England, 1850-1912, p. 392. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

page 303
devoid of any epistemological guidelines. We also encounter mechanisms of this kind of legitimation when a new religion arises: the old religion is declared "dogmatic", "outdated"," deviated", while the new one claims to" return forgotten knowledge "or"discover new knowledge".

In general, peer-reviewed books somehow address the question of how, in constructing an external overwhelming authority, representatives of various near-scientific movements constructed themselves. The construction of their identity was facilitated not only by them, who, like F. Podmore, sought to draw theoretical and historical analogies with the" heretical scientists "of the past (the tradition of comparing them with F. Mesmer comes from them), but also by the "public", who watched with interest the confrontation between the "scientific Leviathan" and lone fighters for scientific truth and freedom. Thus, the majority of scientists, both for religious and scientific reasons, opposed near-scientific movements, and the press did not cease to single out "heretical scientists" as a separate group of "marginals".

In turn, it is at this time that the defensive scientific discourse, supported by conservative representatives of the scientific community, begins to actively develop. It is within the framework of this discourse that all near-scientific movements begin to relate to a single periphery, receiving the designation "pseudoscience" without any attempt to differentiate between them. Careful historical studies, including peer-reviewed ones, show the need for such a distinction, since different groups constructed their relations with the scientific community differently and chose their own strategy of behavior and "struggle" with "scientific authoritarianism". The difference in construction generally stemmed from the a priori vision of how scientific knowledge should be organized by certain representatives of near-scientific movements.

The first group, which can be described as "normativists", included people for whom the norms and ideals of scientific knowledge remained unquestionable authority. They were convinced that their studies were scientific in the strictest sense of the word. They attributed the lack of support from the scientific community to its conservatism and did not accept it.-

page 304
it was rarely pointed out that other scientists who were later recognized and elevated to the top of the academic Olympus were subjected to exactly the same ostracism.

Perhaps the most significant achievement of Sofia Leschapel's latest book is to point out the reason why the first group, which she, for example, refers to as parapsychologists, failed. The ambivalence of their position was that, on the one hand, they wanted to be recognized as an official science, on the other hand, they constantly talked about scientific conservatism and narrow - mindedness, emphasizing their differences and progressive character.4 For this reason, the scientific community, despite the best efforts of parapsychologists, continued to associate them with spiritualists and occultists, thereby leading them beyond the boundaries of scientific knowledge.

The second group included those who could be called "innovators" and for whom the scientific methodology was not an ideal model. They claimed to open up a new field of research to which the old methods of cognition were not applicable. The knowledge they gain can change the methodology of cognition as a whole, which will ultimately lead to the formation of a single synthetic view of the world that can overcome the alienation of science from religion, reason from faith.

It must be said that although such a division, upon careful consideration of the material, demonstrates some conventionality, it is, however, necessary in order to indicate the extremes of two poles that pursue the same goal-the achievement of the unity of humanity. While the former intended to do this on the basis of science, thereby including significant religious ideas in the scientific field, the latter, on the contrary, sought a new synthesis and language that could overcome the estrangement that has arisen between science and religion. The first and second groups were engaged in full-time and part-time polemics: the former sought to dissociate themselves from the latter in order to gain recognition from the scientific community, the latter, on the contrary, reproached the former for being too "scientific", "materialistic" and "subjective".

4. Lachapelle, S. (2011) Investigating Supernatural. From Spiritism and Occultism to Psychical Research and Metaphysics in France, 1853 - 1931, p. 141. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

page 305
As J. R. R. Tolkien famously sums up. Oppenheim, the main motive of philosophical polemics about science in the second half of the 19th century was the desire to "find the ever-elusive "cornerstone" or" primary essence "of nature"5. It was about finding a fundamental theory that could overcome all modernist oppositions and achieve the ideal of unity that Modern science has dedicated itself to. The pursuit of this ideal, in fact, united both representatives of the scientific community and their critics, but they went to achieve it in very different ways and left their own distinct trace in history.

Differentiation of various near-scientific groups is an independent scientific problem, and each of the peer-reviewed researchers solves it in its own way. The primary division is usually made between near-scientific groups and groups that do not claim to have scientific status, for example, various kinds of healers, magicians and magnetizers who claimed to have supernatural powers. Parascientific movements have made great efforts to separate themselves from these groups, primarily because they have discredited their own practices, such as hypnosis, by using them to entertain the public. Considering their activity as initially positive, contributing to public awareness of phenomena, but now, with the advent of new scientific methods, as outdated, researchers such as A. Moll, sought to make suggestion and hypnosis legitimate parts of scientific discourse.6
The next division is made between spiritualists who adhered to the so-called "spirit hypothesis" and "independent scientists"/"agnostics" who tried to imitate science in everything and were inclined to other explanations of "mediumistic phenomena", for example, explaining them with hallucinations and hypnosis. The most characteristic and detailed example of the separation between these two groups is the separation from the Society for Psychical Research in 1887 of a group of unsatisfied spiritualists.

5. Oppenheim, J. P. The Other World, p. 396.

6. Wolffram, H. (2009) The Stepchildren of Science. Psychical Research and Parapsychology in Germany, c. 1870-1939, p. 103. Amsterdam - New York: Rodopi.

page 306
too cautious explanation by members of the Society of "miracles" of the famous medium W. Eglinton 7. The division between these groups was along the line of faith - while the " agnostics "refused to accept the" spirit hypothesis " to the last, the spiritualists accepted it unconditionally and believed that the Agnostics were pouring water into the mill of the materialists with their doubts.

Another well-known division is the distinction made within the spiritualists themselves, who are usually divided into two large groups - Christian and anti-Christian spiritualists. While the former considered spiritualistic experiments to be an effective response to the challenge of materialistic science and a way to protect some of the foundations of Christian faith (for example, the belief in the posthumous existence of the soul), the latter were convinced that spiritualism could serve to create a single universal religion that overcomes the differences between different religious systems. The central credo of anti-Christian spiritualism should be considered the idea of" progress", for the sake of which its followers were ready to overthrow any authority, starting with the divinity of Jesus and ending with the sacred character of the Old and New Testaments. However, as J. R. R. Tolkien shows, According to J. Oppenheim, "it would be wrong to talk about the irreconcilable hostility of these two groups" 8, and therefore she rightly suggests that the name "anti-Christian"should be revised. Ultimately, the so-called "anti-Christian" spiritualists had their own positive agenda and shared with the" Christian " spiritualists the key ideal of the Victorian era - the search for universal unity.

Another distinction made by all researchers is that between the spiritualistic and occult movements. The occult movement was largely focused on the search for" ancient knowledge "that would pave the way for"the science of the future." Magic was considered as a kind of "ancient science", not yet studied by modern scientific means, limited by a number of metaphysical statements, primarily the teaching of materialism. Unlike the spiritualists, they looked more backward than forward.-

7. Oppenheim, J. P. The Other World, p. 140.

8. Ibid., p. 105.

page 307
For example, they respected tradition more than progress, but they equally rejected the present that surrounded them, especially religious authorities. Based on an example from the book by J. S. Lechapel, who drew a comparison between occultism and spiritualism, convincingly shows that in comparison with the spiritualists, occultists sought to give more scientific character to their statements, moving from ordinary language to the artificial language of science.9
Another important division stems from the development of psychology, especially the study of human consciousness. On the agenda was the question of the relationship between psychology and physiology, consciousness and body, in particular, whether the former is derived from the latter. Many spiritualists actively opposed the idea that was first voiced by the physiologist William Carpenter, explaining "mediumistic phenomena" as an "ideomotor act" and "unconscious brain activity", thereby rejecting the "spirit hypothesis" and entering into a polemic with those who considered it proven. On the other hand, some researchers have insisted that the phenomena associated with spiritualism can be successfully "psychologically explained by the idea of suggestion or as evidence of the hidden power of reason"10. The most striking example of the conflict between the proponents of this approach, the so-called "animists" and spiritualists, is the polemic between E. Hartmann and A. Aksakov.

It should be noted that at the end of the XIX - beginning of the XX century, in the scientific community of psychologists, it is impossible to clearly distinguish between psychologists themselves and those researchers who "orthodox science" considered to be on the periphery of scientific life. At various times, the Society for Psychical Research included such prominent figures of psychology as S. Richet, I. Bernheim, C. Lambroso, T. Flournoy, W. James, and Z. Freud. At the same time, some psychologists, such as W. Wundt, fearing for the respectable status of their own scientific field, opposed research groups that were not recognized by science, especially if they used the designation "experimental psi" as a signboard.-

9. Lachapelle, S. Investigating Supernatural, pp. 49-51.

10. Wolffram, H. The Stepchildren of Science, p. 42.

page 308
Moreover, parapsychologists themselves eventually became the subject of research for various branches of psychology, starting with the psychology of deception and ending with the psychology of the crowd.

The emergence of "parapsychology" (a concept introduced by Max Dessau in 1889) is considered by H. Wolfram as part of the process of" sanation", the separation of representatives of" pseudoscience " from earlier predecessors, in this case from occultists and spiritualists, and their desire to comply as much as possible with the norms and rules of the scientific community.12 One of the most significant and visible means of this kind of rehabilitation was the organization of separate rooms for conducting experiments, specially equipped laboratories, of which the most famous was the laboratory of the German researcher Albert von Schrenk-Notzing. A detailed analysis of the specifics of its functioning led X. Wolfram came to a paradoxical conclusion: despite conducting experiments in special rooms and with pre-installed equipment, parapsychologists were forced to take into account the requirements of the medium, thereby not being able to treat him as a genuine "object" for the experiment. Ultimately, parapsychology was unable to " get rid of its spiritual past and destroy its dependence on authority."13
A separate advantage of peer-reviewed works is an attempt to reveal the diversity of near - scientific movements that existed at the end of the XIX-beginning of the XX century in a historical perspective. The teachings of these movements reacted sensitively both to the change in the epistemological orientations of science and to the general transformation of culture at the beginning of the XX century. The most striking example of this kind of "response" is the works of German parapsychologists of the 1930s, in particular T. K. Osterreich and G. Driesch, who sought to build on the latest achievements in physics and biology to create a new "holistic science" capable of overcoming the "mechanismism" and "materialism" of Western culture.

11. Ibid., p. 265.

12. Wallis, R. (1985) "Science and Pseudoscience", Social Science Information 24 (3): 585 - 601.

13. Wolffram, H. The Stepchildren of Science, p. 175.

page 309
Analyzing the reaction of the Protestant and Catholic Churches to the theories and practices of German parapsychology, H. Wolfram notes that in contrast to "popular occultism" and "spiritualism", which caused rejection in the traditional Christian churches, they considered near-scientific movements as a means of strengthening religion in the age of the dominance of science. This attitude was due to the fact that parapsychology, unlike occult teachings and spiritualism, did not pretend at first glance to discover any religious truths. Some Christian thinkers believed that parapsychology could explain phenomena such as stigmata or even the resurrection, challenging the common interpretation of them as allegories that had no relation to reality. 14 According to them, parascience, while rejecting claims to discover a holistic worldview, becomes a natural ally of religion, seeking to provide a scientific explanation for the phenomena described in religious texts.

* * *

The history of science, like any other history, cannot be taken out of the complex cultural context of its development. Recent studies clearly show the existence of a relationship between the scientific achievements of scientists and their marginal "mediumistic" experiences.15 At the same time, it remains indisputable that science as an intellectual enterprise is least influenced by particular historical factors.

The variety of different near-scientific groups considered in peer-reviewed books clearly demonstrates the different degree of interrelation of scientific and philosophical ideas in the teachings of near-scientific movements. The scientific search for spiritists and occultists, "metapsychics" and parapsychologists was determined by their value preferences, religious beliefs, etc.-

14. Wolffram, H. The Stepchildren of Science, p. 218.

15. Noakes, R. (2004) "The Bridge which Is between Physical and Psychical Research: William Fletcher Barrett, Sensitive Flames, and Spiritualism", History of Science XIII: 419 - 464; Raia, C. G. (2007) "From Ether Theory to Ether Theology: Oliver Lodge and the Physics of Immortality", Journal of the History of the Behavioral Science 43 (1): 18 - 43.

page 310
or, on the contrary, anti-religious beliefs that initially inspired them to experiment and research. The most striking example of this kind is the German Psychological Society, which broke up in 1889 into two branches: the mystical one, headed by K. Duprel, which aimed to create a "transcendental psychology" as a holistic worldview, and the empirical one, headed by A. Schrenk-Notzing, who sought to create an "experimental psychology" that was completely freed from the concept of "transcendental psychology". dictates of physiology 16.

Recalling the principle of symmetry, it is worth noting that, of course, value preferences were also present in the work of scientists whose achievements were recognized as official science, and, perhaps, these preferences had a certain influence on their discoveries. Therefore, it would be correct to speak about the degree of interrelation of scientific ideas and value attitudes of the researcher, which is productively considered as one of the criteria for demarcating truly scientific knowledge, which is minimally dependent on the historical context, and the knowledge obtained by "adopted children of science".

The phenomenon referred to as "parascience" constructs itself on the borderline between the inductive method of science, from which it tries to move away, considering it reductionist and narrow, and the broad, holistic "worldview" to which it seeks to rise, proving its truth by means of an experimental method. The significant internal contradiction that existed between scientific methodology and the global goal of scientific research was the main reason for the displacement of various near-scientific groups of the second half of the XIX-XX century to the periphery of scientific life in Western Europe.

Bibliography

Vizgin V. P. Hermetic Tradition and Scientific Revolution: towards a new interpretation of the thesis by Frances A. Yates//State, religion, and Church in Russia and abroad. 2013. N 1. pp. 92-100.

Henry J. Smith Inclusion of Occult Traditions in Early Modern Natural Philosophy: A New Approach to the Decline of Magic//State, religion, and Church in Russia and abroad. 2013. N 1. pp. 53-91.

16. Wolffram, H. The Stepchildren of Science, p. 68.

page 311
Oppenheim, J. P. (1985) The Other World. Spiritualism and Psychical Research in England, 1850 - 1912. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lachapelle, S. (2011) Investigating Supernatural. From Spiritism and Occultism to Psychical Research and Metaphysics in France, 1853 - 1931. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Noakes, R. (2004) "The Bridge which Is between Physical and Psychical Research: William Fletcher Barrett, Sensitive Flames, and Spiritualism", History of Science XIII: 419 - 464.

Raia, C. G. (2007) "From Ether Theory to Ether Theology: Oliver Lodge and the Physics of Immortality", Journal of the History of the Behavioral Science 43 (1): 18 - 43.

Wallis, R. (1985) "Science and Pseudoscience", Social Science Information 24 (3): 585 - 601.

Wolffram, H. (2009) The Stepchildren of Science. Psychical Research and Parapsychology in Germany. Amsterdam - New York: Rodopi.

References

Vizgin, V. P. (2013) "Germeticheskaia traditsiia i nauchnaia revoliutsiia: k novoi interpretatsii tezisa FrensisA. Ieits" [Hermetic Tradition and the Scientific Revolution: Towards a New interpretation of Yates Thesis], Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 1 (31): 92 - 100.

Genri, Dzh. (2013) "Vkliuchenie okkul'tnykh traditsii v naturfilosofiiu rannego Novogo vremeni: novyi podkhod k probleme upadka magi" [The Absorption of Occult Traditions into Early Modern Natural Philosophy: A New Account of the Decline of Magic], Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 1 (31): 53 - 91.

Oppenheim, J. P. (1985) The Other World. Spiritualism and Psychical Research in England, 1850 - 1912. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lachapelle, S. (2011) Investigating Supernatural. From Spiritism and Occultism to Psychical Research and Metaphysics in France, 1853 - 1931. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Noakes, R. (2004) "The Bridge which Is between Physical and Psychical Research: William Fletcher Barrett, Sensitive Flames, and Spiritualism", History of Science XIII: 419 - 464.

Raia, C. G. (2007) "From Ether Theory to Ether Theology: Oliver Lodge and the Physics of Immortality", Journal of the History of the Behavioral Science 43 (1).

Wallis, R. (1985) "Science and Pseudoscience", Social Science Information 24 (3): 585 - 601.

Wolffram, H. (2009) The Stepchildren of Science. Psychical Research and Parapsychology in Germany. Amsterdam - New York: Rodopi.

page 312

Permanent link to this publication: