Earlier I noted that there was room to speculate on the connection between Roy Petran Lingle and the Fortean Society, given that Lingle was listed among the Society’s first “Regional Correspondents” but otherwise seemed to have nothing to do with th Society. I suggested the connection was in Lingle’s hope for a religion without superstition.
Now I have some firmer evidence about Lingle’s interest in the Fortean Society, and it has less to do with religion, than science—and its overreach as an intellectual endeavor.
The 1931 Princeton Alumni Weekly reported:
“Professor Roy Lingle of the English Department at Drexel Institute has been much interested in the Fortean Society, organized, according to the founder, Charles Fort, to combat the ‘bigotry of orthodox science.’ Drexel is now represented in the society and an article in the Drexel Triangle in connection with the movement quotes Roy as follows:
"From experience and observation in our colleges and graduate schools, I can testify most emphatically that scientific research as applied to the humanities, useful as it may be in teaching methods, leads to the ignoring or rejection of vital contributions to human thought. To call the scientific type of scholar a philosopher, or in some cases even a thinker, is to call a gold-digger a financier, a clam diggers a sportsman, or a ragpicker a textile artist. Indeed, intellectual rag-picking has been glorified by the so-called scientific method, which may even enlist the power of money for the suppression of new ideas.”
(’08, Princeton Alumni Weekly, Vol. 31, no. 33, 29 May 1931, 844.)
Now I have some firmer evidence about Lingle’s interest in the Fortean Society, and it has less to do with religion, than science—and its overreach as an intellectual endeavor.
The 1931 Princeton Alumni Weekly reported:
“Professor Roy Lingle of the English Department at Drexel Institute has been much interested in the Fortean Society, organized, according to the founder, Charles Fort, to combat the ‘bigotry of orthodox science.’ Drexel is now represented in the society and an article in the Drexel Triangle in connection with the movement quotes Roy as follows:
"From experience and observation in our colleges and graduate schools, I can testify most emphatically that scientific research as applied to the humanities, useful as it may be in teaching methods, leads to the ignoring or rejection of vital contributions to human thought. To call the scientific type of scholar a philosopher, or in some cases even a thinker, is to call a gold-digger a financier, a clam diggers a sportsman, or a ragpicker a textile artist. Indeed, intellectual rag-picking has been glorified by the so-called scientific method, which may even enlist the power of money for the suppression of new ideas.”
(’08, Princeton Alumni Weekly, Vol. 31, no. 33, 29 May 1931, 844.)
