Reply to Dr. McGilchrist's "Remarks" on Professor Bennett's introductory lecture, "The present state of the theory and practice of medicine" / by John Glen.
- Glen, John, M.A.
- Date:
- 1856
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Reply to Dr. McGilchrist's "Remarks" on Professor Bennett's introductory lecture, "The present state of the theory and practice of medicine" / by John Glen. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.
10/32 page 8
![self shows no reasons for his definition of a line, angle, or tri- angle. Further, the critic is wholly mistaken as to what is necessary for proof in the supposed case. He is stating the conditions necessary to prove a compound whole exact, but to prove it inexact, it is sufficient to prove or ascertain the inexactness of any one component part, and then to that extent at least the compound whole must also be inexact. The third statement appears of a very obscure character ter- minating in the conclusion, that if something or other be granted as true in Dr Bennett's definition, a part will be greater than its whole.' To unravel the obscurity, two syllogisms are necessary. The first may be supplied thus, that chemistry is an exact science, and chemistry is one of the component parts of medi- cine, therefore one of the component parts of medicine is an exact science; and now the second syllogism advances to con- found Dr Bennett by a reductio ad ahsurdum:— One of the component parts of medicine is exact [says Dr Bennett]. But the compound whole is inexact [says Dr Ben- nett]. Therefore, says the critic, you must from these pre- mises be drawn to the absurd conclusion, that the part is greater than the whole. By no means, the only logical and perfectly correct conclusion is, that the part is positive, and the whole negative (as oft-times we find in algebra), and so the part pos- sesses an attribute which cannot be predicated of the whole, than which nothing is more common in nature. And now the fourth and last assault, which should have been the only and the fully developed attack. The argument is designed to prove that medicine is in no sense a science : rather a difficult point to gain, but certainly one from which, if gained, he can 3 But this is not the case, for, according to Dr Bennett, one of the branches that go to make up the so-called inexact science of medicine—cheniislry. to wit—is itself an exact science; so that a part is greater than the whole, which is absurd.—{Dr M'Oilchrist, p. 5).](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21478168_0010.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
