It illustrated the copious fallacies which haunt the human intellect.

Thus it was maintained by some persons, and denied by others, that sounds of unknown origin were occasionally heard in a certain house.

These, it was suggested, might (if really heard) be caused by slight seismic disturbances.

Now many people argue, "Blunderstone House is not haunted, for I passed a night there, and nothing unusual occurred".
Apply this to a house where noises are actually caused by young earthquakes.

Would anybody say: "There are no seismic disturbances near Blunderstone House, for I passed a night there, and none occurred"?
Why should a noisy ghost (if there is such a thing) or a hallucinatory sound (if there is such a thing), be expected to be more punctual and pertinacious than a seismic disturbance?
Again, the gentleman who opened the correspondence with a long statement on the negative side, cried out, like others, for scientific publicity, for names of people and places.