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.
15/32 page 13
![irely, that his whole list be examined before any cry be raised it the proof is inadequate, and the conclusion incompetent. Sir Isaac Newton had attempted to show the influence of ivitation upon all bodies, and, for simplicity's sake, had I gun with the homely fact, that a ripe apple, in a calm autumn j,ht, falls to the ground—what would have been thought of a itic that cried, Away with your ripe apple, your false analo- ' I's, your miserable comparison between things so different in lid as apples and planetary bodies, between results so dispro- rtionate as a quiet bed at the bottom of a tree, and a cease- s revolution through the immensity of space! Yet, just so, r M'Gilchrist (after examining, very captiously, the first two iinple instances) breaks forth into a contemptuous and exple- ive declamation, as if this man were not worthy to live! One xcuse only can be offei'ed: he thought lie had listened to four II stances, though he had only listened to two. Still, if aa any, or more, remained behind, he was logically premature '<] unfair in ridiculing the conclusion to which Dr Bennett iiild bring us only by induction from all the instances. He ;^ht with due candour to have weighed every argument. Again I would ask, in what manner does the critic deal with 's argument? and again I must answer, He trifles with the ii gument, and interrupts its course by interpolating theories iliout the lineal descent of syphilis from leprosy, and of holera apparently from syphilis; by challenging Dr Bennett to •nine out of his course and argue the question of the change of types in pneumonia; and, by descanting upon the tendency of uicient theories to re-emerge in modern times. These specu- lations, coming from Dr M'Gilchrist, cannot be suspected of ing barren—though, had they emanated from Dr Bennett, ny would very probably have been pointed out as the latest lynes fatui in the marshes of theoretical medicine. True or (false, these statements are irrelevant, and whatever their in- ttrinsic value, the exhibition of them before Dr Bennett's argu-](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21478168_0015.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
