Talk:Spectral evidence

On this page, "spectral evidence" there is a ref. to Cotton Mather urging the acceptance of such evidence, whereas on the biography page of Mather it is said that he argued against its acceptance. I'm not sure which view is correct, I just wanted to point out the discrepancy.

The Cotton Mather article is being too "kind" to him: he may have argued for caution (I don't think he did so in a way which suggested he was serious), but he certainly argued that it should be accepted as evidence. - Nunh-huh 03:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Though apparently "Wikiproject Paranormal" wants to claim it, "spectral evidence" is a legal term, and has nothing to do with actual paranormal phenomena. - Nunh-huh 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a 'vision' is pretty paranormal. --InShaneee 20:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You'd say something induced by ergotamine is paranormal? Good think you don't have final say in the matter, then. - Nunh-huh 20:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of "[sic]"-cing the use of "Personate" in the title of Cotton (senior)'s book. It may be an uncommon form these days (more often replaced by "Impersonate" in it's various cases and conjugations), but it's perfectly correct English. Actually, in some English-speaking countries, it's language you'd find every week in the newspaper, if not almost every day - Scot's legalese talks of "personating" someone when (for example) you get sign a claim form in someone else's name at the Social Security (American English : "Welfare") office while claiming to be them. Very common crime. A Karley 07:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is to prevent overzealous wiki-editors from "correcting" it - because they will try. I'll change the "sic" to an editorial admonition serving the same purpose. - Nunh-huh 23:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is reference #8 a viable source?

I believe that reference #8, which has the following citation, should not be used as a reference in this article.

Shaunak P.; Danny K.; Tobias G. "Court of Oyer and Terminer Dissolved". The Salem Times. Retrieved 2 July 2016 – via Univ. of Chicago.

It appears to be a made-up newspaper created by students for a class project, and is not a primary or secondary source.

Any thoughts?

Orangedog28 (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that does not look like a legitimate source. It makes several errors that would not happen in a valid source. Not the least of which is marking it as published 1693 and referencing incidents from 1702, 1709, 1752, and of course the "300th anniversary" of the trials.

Randomuser0139 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the citation needed tag for the "better ten go free..."

The previous citation for the quote does not quite appear to be correct. The quote given comes from "The Wonders of the Invisible World" by Cotton and Increase Mather on page 283 (the noted title seems more akin to a chapter or essay within the larger work):

″This notwithstanding I will add; It were better that ten suspected Witches should escape, than that one innocent Person should be Condemned; that is an old saying, and true, Prestat reum nocentem absolvi, quam ex prohibitis Indiciis & illegitima probatione condemnari. It is better that a Guilty Person should be Absolved, than that he should without sufficient ground of Conviction be condemned. I had rather judge a Witch to be an honest woman, than judge an honest woman as a Witch. The Word of God directs men not to proceed to the execution of the most capital offenders, until such time as upon searching diligently, the matter is found to be a Truth, and the thing certain, Deut. 13.14, 15.″.

Randomuser0139 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Increase Mather uses the quote twice. I managed to find an appearance of the exact phrase on page 66 of Cases of Conscience.

Yim1220 (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

How is the Cornell case concurrent?

The "Other Cases" section states the Cornell case was "Concurrent with the trials in Salem".

But the Cornell fiasco was in 1673, which is 20 years earlier.

That doesn't sound concurrent; it would be like saying COVID is concurrent with September 11. Scientificaldan (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)