We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
2 improved formatting
source | link

You have understood the general meaning of most of this quite dense writing. I've added some elaboration.

1). You say "hard to understand" I more feel that we cannot understand because we are not in the full possession of the facts, and it is now impossible to obtain those facts.

2). All we have is a Smith's account, which appears to be full and clear. We ourselves do not have access to the other witnesses, Smith has attempted to obtain their stories and his account reflects his findings. The problem is ...

3). ... can we trust Smith? He seems to be sane, but the story is so strange it seemsI'll elaborate more likely that his brain's workings are flawed; the brain's workings have deviated from what is "Natural", he brain has left the "Natural Path". In broad day (that is in broad daylight) in Oxford a centre of logic and reason a brain is malfunctioning.

4). But who are we to say what is Natural? Do we understand how the mind works. We can only "dimly" understand the proper path, so how can we say that Smith's mind has deviated? We shine our science on the workings of the mind but only see part of the truth, and the pieces we do not see are great and terrible. We are over-confident if we claim to be sure that Smith is deranged.them:

  1. You say "hard to understand". I more feel that we cannot understand because we are not in the full possession of the facts, and it is now impossible to obtain those facts.

  2. All we have is a Smith's account, which appears to be full and clear. We ourselves do not have access to the other witnesses, Smith has attempted to obtain their stories and his account reflects his findings. The problem is...

  3. ...can we trust Smith? He seems to be sane, but the story is so strange it seems more likely that his brain's workings are flawed; the brain's workings have deviated from what is "Natural", he brain has left the "Natural Path". In broad day (that is in broad daylight), in Oxford—a centre of logic and reason, a brain is malfunctioning.

  4. But who are we to say what is Natural? Do we understand how the mind works. We can only "dimly" understand the proper path, so how can we say that Smith's mind has deviated? We shine our science on the workings of the mind but only see part of the truth, and the pieces we do not see are great and terrible. We are over-confident if we claim to be sure that Smith is deranged.

The overall intention is to say "You may think this story is impossible and that Smith must be mad. But are you sure you know what is mad and what is real?" Cue spooky music ...

Also remember that Conan Doyle became convinced of the supernatural and seances. In real life, he was accepting of the supernatural.

You have understood the general meaning of most of this quite dense writing. I've added some elaboration.

1). You say "hard to understand" I more feel that we cannot understand because we are not in the full possession of the facts, and it is now impossible to obtain those facts.

2). All we have is a Smith's account, which appears to be full and clear. We ourselves do not have access to the other witnesses, Smith has attempted to obtain their stories and his account reflects his findings. The problem is ...

3). ... can we trust Smith? He seems to be sane, but the story is so strange it seems more likely that his brain's workings are flawed; the brain's workings have deviated from what is "Natural", he brain has left the "Natural Path". In broad day (that is in broad daylight) in Oxford a centre of logic and reason a brain is malfunctioning.

4). But who are we to say what is Natural? Do we understand how the mind works. We can only "dimly" understand the proper path, so how can we say that Smith's mind has deviated? We shine our science on the workings of the mind but only see part of the truth, and the pieces we do not see are great and terrible. We are over-confident if we claim to be sure that Smith is deranged.

The overall intention is to say "You may think this story is impossible and that Smith must be mad. But are you sure you know what is mad and what is real?" Cue spooky music ...

Also remember that Conan Doyle became convinced of the supernatural and seances. In real life he was accepting of the supernatural.

You have understood the general meaning of most of this quite dense writing. I'll elaborate more on them:

  1. You say "hard to understand". I more feel that we cannot understand because we are not in the full possession of the facts, and it is now impossible to obtain those facts.

  2. All we have is a Smith's account, which appears to be full and clear. We ourselves do not have access to the other witnesses, Smith has attempted to obtain their stories and his account reflects his findings. The problem is...

  3. ...can we trust Smith? He seems to be sane, but the story is so strange it seems more likely that his brain's workings are flawed; the brain's workings have deviated from what is "Natural", he brain has left the "Natural Path". In broad day (that is in broad daylight), in Oxford—a centre of logic and reason, a brain is malfunctioning.

  4. But who are we to say what is Natural? Do we understand how the mind works. We can only "dimly" understand the proper path, so how can we say that Smith's mind has deviated? We shine our science on the workings of the mind but only see part of the truth, and the pieces we do not see are great and terrible. We are over-confident if we claim to be sure that Smith is deranged.

The overall intention is to say "You may think this story is impossible and that Smith must be mad. But are you sure you know what is mad and what is real?" Cue spooky music ...

Also remember that Conan Doyle became convinced of the supernatural and seances. In real life, he was accepting of the supernatural.

1
source | link

You have understood the general meaning of most of this quite dense writing. I've added some elaboration.

1). You say "hard to understand" I more feel that we cannot understand because we are not in the full possession of the facts, and it is now impossible to obtain those facts.

2). All we have is a Smith's account, which appears to be full and clear. We ourselves do not have access to the other witnesses, Smith has attempted to obtain their stories and his account reflects his findings. The problem is ...

3). ... can we trust Smith? He seems to be sane, but the story is so strange it seems more likely that his brain's workings are flawed; the brain's workings have deviated from what is "Natural", he brain has left the "Natural Path". In broad day (that is in broad daylight) in Oxford a centre of logic and reason a brain is malfunctioning.

4). But who are we to say what is Natural? Do we understand how the mind works. We can only "dimly" understand the proper path, so how can we say that Smith's mind has deviated? We shine our science on the workings of the mind but only see part of the truth, and the pieces we do not see are great and terrible. We are over-confident if we claim to be sure that Smith is deranged.

The overall intention is to say "You may think this story is impossible and that Smith must be mad. But are you sure you know what is mad and what is real?" Cue spooky music ...

Also remember that Conan Doyle became convinced of the supernatural and seances. In real life he was accepting of the supernatural.