Remarks relative to Dr. Paine's commentaries upon the writings of M. Louis / by H. I. B.

  • Bowditch, Henry I. (Henry Ingersoll), 1808-1892.
Date:
1840
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Remarks relative to Dr. Paine's commentaries upon the writings of M. Louis / by H. I. B. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    20/32 (page 20)
    analogy serves only to point the way to new researches; it teaches to seek, in a certain direction, for new facts, but it never supplies the want of them; for if it were otherwise, we should deduce the absolute exist- ence of a thing from the simple possibility of such existence, which is an absurdity.” •/ The inference we draw from the above perversion of Louis’s words, is one of these : 1st, Dr. P. has wilfully falsified a remark of an au- thor whom he wishes to hold up to scorn ; or, 2d, Dr. P. reads so care- lessly that he did not observe his mistake. Upon whichever horn of the dilemma the Dr. may place himself, the inferences are not very plea- sant for a man who writes such full commentaries upon the medical theories of the day. But our commentator may not choose to think himself placed as we think he is. Be it so, and let us hear him in his fu- ture remarks. After a long defence of analogy as a source of evidence, he concludes thus triumphantly ! “ Thus in the example which our author fears may encroach upon the dominion of morbid anatomy, who is there that will not concede that ‘profuse perspiration’ arising from disease without ‘ any appreciable lesion ’ of the skin, is not a substan- tial ground for induction that c diarrhoea ’—aye, and many other morbid results—may take place independently of any c appreciable lesion ’ of structure? And to show you [mark well the Dr.’s earnestness] how analogy may grow into a matter of fact, and in this very instance, we will point you to serous effusions in the brain, thorax, abdomen, where the secreting membranes often exhibit their perfectly normal state.”— (P. 695.) Heaven defend medical art from the “facts ” which grow up in this way. A man has sweated, and no change of structure of skin is observed—therefore, says Dr. P., we are certain that a man may have hydrothorax, dropsy of the brain, hydrocele, &c. Sic., without evident change of structure in the organs implicated. We must say that we should prefer to examine the chest and head and see whether these things are so, rather than to infer that these diseases exist merely from what passes upon the skin. It is a long while since we studied logic under the venerable Dr. H. Would that we could appeal to that learned man. Even he, with all his logical acumen, would be shocked at such unwonted use of analogical reasoning. We hasten to another instance of our commentator’s unfairness. On page 696, he says—“ Our author has no difficulty with analogy where a lesion of structure may embellish the philosophy of disease. Thus : ‘Analogy,’ he says, ‘is in favor of what we advance. For, when haemorrhage occurs in any internal organ, it is almost constantly a symp-