In the service of science - Part 3

45 “The spook was not manipulated.” The court furthermore decided that all negative passages in the book published by the Viennese Zsolnay-Verlag , titled: “Falsche Geister – Echte Schwindler” (”False spirits – genuine swindlers”) had to be removed and these passages in the already printed books had to be made illegible. Result: A small step towards the truth, not made by the sciences, but by a court of law ! The Psychic Peace Circle continues to report its experiences June 1970 After dealing with the paranormal (spirit research) for 20 years one cannot assert that we performed pure laymen’s work. The achieved results have absolute scientific value. Similar work is performed in other countries also: The Greater World League invested more than 25 years in researching the subject. Dr. Wickland , in the USA, entertained contact with the WORLD of the SPIRIT for more than 30 years. • Even though all of this research was positive, most people are not aware of the results. The results were only spread within psycho-scientific literature and only a small circle of people showed an interest in psycho-scientific questions. The situation is even worse in scientific circles: Universities completely factor this field of knowledge out. Psycho-scientific research is only conducted in independent institutes where atheism often dominates. Periodicals sometimes publish misconceptions or fallacies . Scientists lack objective information, unless they procure it themselves. To do so they must resort to the results of private research. But which scientist is prepared to do this? Presentations on radio and on television clearly show the negative spin-off this leads to. Result: The public is not enlightened, but falsely informed. A scientist can be a genius in a specific field of expertise, he can be the most eminent mathematician or physicist, but woe to him if he dares to tread on the slippery ice of a discipline he has absolutely no inkling of, but still makes a comment about it. Uncontrolled nonsense will then sputter from his lips. Experts will immediately recognise this nonsense, but the broader masses amongst the listeners can only go by the title of the lecturer and these titles in particular are unfortunately often abused in order to make money. We encountered such a case only recently during a lecture by Professor H. Haber who said that he didn’t believe in “Flying Saucers”, because he “had not seen one so far” . Is this a valid argument? One could in comparison also say that one does not believe in ghosts, because one has never seen a ghost. One also does not believe on GOD, because HE is not visible. Even if one is tolerant and respects someone’s personal inexperience and ignorance, it is still objectionable to virtually see the opinion of a layman in this important field of knowledge forced on other people via radio or TV. • One unfortunately does not make the distinction of where the pundits’ knowledge stops and where the amateurish ignorance begins.