A reply to certain observations of John Forbes, M.D / [George Macilwain].

  • George Macilwain
Date:
1846
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A reply to certain observations of John Forbes, M.D / [George Macilwain]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    6/20 page 4
    In one of our works*, we had, in speaking of vegetables, in¬ cidentally remarked on the interesting manner in which they derive their colour from light, the refined analyses they appear to effect, and the proof that they did derive their colour from light, in the absence of light being found to prevent the develop¬ ment of colour, &c. Now here our Reviewer disputes the facts; and why ? Because some vegetables (Algse, as he asserts), in the depths of the ocean, develop colours—without light, reader ? oh, no ; but because they do so, as he expresses it, with u infinitesi¬ mally small quantities” of it. Bravo, Dr. Forbes ! What could Aristotle have been dreaming of amongst the ancients, or Campbell, or Watts, or Whately, amongst the moderns, whilst there was such comfortable, plastic Logic as the foregoing ? It is impossible to make a syllogism of the Doctor’s argument, truly; but we cannot resist seeing how funny it will look in a dress of that fashion : Some plants evolve colour with infinitesimally small quantities of light; vegetables are plants; therefore, vegetables do not re¬ quire any light, &c. What a charming logic f if true) for barristers, physicians, con¬ sulting surgeons, and all who have so long to wait for the antici¬ pated fruition of public estimation ! for it is certain that some animals (Reptilia, for example) can live with infinitesimally small quantities of food—Man is an animal; therefore (in the Doctor’s logic) he can live without any. Why, that sapient bird, the Owl, might have taught the Doctor better. Does he suppose that the owl sees less by means of light, because he can fulfil his functions with so ee infinitesimal” a quan¬ tity of it as would be darkness to our Reviewer’s optics ? We know not what the Doctor may do with our works, or with his London patients ; but if he reviews after this manner, he will be the death of us. rIhe Reviewer has another very amusing bit, too, about our ignorance of how our notions clash with the Newtonian theory; and still more, alas ! with that modification of it required by the Undulatory ! ! Oh, that we had space to shew what a stupid, unac¬ commodating thing a fact is,—to let in a few corpuscles or undula- * Medicine and Surgery One Inductive Science. Highley, 1838.
    No text description is available for this image
    No text description is available for this image
    No text description is available for this image