The purpose of this commission was misunderstood, and therefore many were disappointed with the report which it published, (Supplement II). Some had been expecting a positive conclusive explanation; the commission recommended further investigation. Some had asked for a solution of the question whether or not the horse was able to think; the commission maintained neither the one, nor the other. Some had indicated as the main condition of a satisfactory investigation, that both Mr. von Osten and Mr. Schillings be excluded ...
Read More
The purpose of this commission was misunderstood, and therefore many were disappointed with the report which it published, (Supplement II). Some had been expecting a positive conclusive explanation; the commission recommended further investigation. Some had asked for a solution of the question whether or not the horse was able to think; the commission maintained neither the one, nor the other. Some had indicated as the main condition of a satisfactory investigation, that both Mr. von Osten and Mr. Schillings be excluded from the tests; this was not done. But the commission-which, by the way, did not give itself this name, since it had been delegated by no one-undoubtedly had the right to formulate its problem as it saw fit, and this was carefully expressed at the beginning of its report as follows: "The undersigned came together for the purpose of investigating the question whether or not there is involved in the feats of the horse of Mr. von Osten anything of the nature of tricks, that is, intentional influence or aid on the part of the questioner." It was this preliminary question, and not whether or not the horse could think, which the commission intended to answer.
Read Less
