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.
14/32 page 12
![How does the critic meet this argument? He might meet it by challenging and disproving the minor terra: this he is well disposed to do, but no proof exists that medicine is no science except the miserable argument, that because the foundation is not science, therefore the superstructure is not science. To dis- prove the major terra, the critic makes not one single effort; but while Dr Bennett is adducing the influence of science A on art A, of science B on art B, of science C on art C, the criticistriumphantly declaring thatscience A has notbeen proved to influence science D, that the laws of optics refuse to be turned to physiological uses. But that question is now irrelevant —subsequently the critic's triumph will be questioned by me. Meanwhile, since neither premise is demolished, we deduce the conclusion, that medicine necessarily, as a science, influences its art. But Dr Bennett is not content that this important position should be granted upon these general grounds, by deduction for the very nature of science. He proceeds to prove the same assertion, inductively by an accumulation of special instances. —{Dr Bennett, pp. 13-19.) Some of these are given at con- siderable length ; to others he is content to allude as equally sure but demanding for their full development greater time, and probably greater knowledge in his audience, than he could claim. The list consists of the treatment of tsenia and favus [not the treatment of scabies, as the critic would make us suppose], further, the management of tumours, abscesses, pneumonia, pleurisy, apoplexy, syphilis, small pox, phthisis, and Bright's dis- ease. The list is large, and believing that each link in that chain is good, we arc shut up to the conclusion, that medical theory is very influential upon the art. In what manner does the critic deal with this argument? May I be permitted, with due deference to your judgment, to say that, in my opinion, he deals most unfairly. If Dr Bennett adopts this inductive method, what does fairness demand?](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21478168_0014.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
