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.

    9/20 page 7
    “ the exceptions. Now, as we cannot prove that diseases are suc- ‘f cessful, since they so often prove fatal, we must, to sustain the “ principle, rely on the success we may be able to arrive at, in the “ explanation of such exceptions.” Now, how any man, with any justice to his readers, could charge upon us the passage first quoted, as a u postulatum,” and suppress the whole of the long note so elabo¬ rately guarding the reader against the mistake he is sure to make from reading Dr. Forbes’ version, we are totally at a loss to imagine. Our readers must determine for themselves the nature of such reviewing, and the appellation fitting it. For ourselves, we regret that any writer, and still more, any physician, should be found to review in such fashion ; and whatever qualities it may involve, either of head or heart, we feel perfectly secure from being un- christianlike, when we sincerely wish him a speedy deliverance both from the one and the other. Our Reviewer seemed terribly puzzled to know what to do with our “ Law of Inflammation.” Appearing unequal to the subject, and yet, seeing nothing asserted but with the fact to prove it, he must do something; so he at once insinuates that the law is to be found in John Hunter, and, quoting a passage having as much to do with his assertion, as the satellites of Jupiter, he leaves his readers to “ judge of the novelty of our doctrine.” If the Reviewer really mean to assert that our u Law of Inflammation” is to be found in John Hunter, where every one knows it is not, he must either be convicted of gross ignorance, or of something worse. The insinuation is just as true as it would be, were we to assert, that, because certain properties of matter, as inertia, &c. were found in Dr. Forbes’ writings, or because his arguments like apples fall to the ground, we should find in them Newton’s law of gravitation. Alas ! we cannot pioneer through an impenetrability so Boeotian as that which cannot distinguish between a fact and the law under which it occurs. Well, the learned Reviewer, having done his worst, we suppose, against the book, seems next desirous of hunting down the author; wherefore, having boiled himself into the requisite excitement, he becomes prophetic, and, having pronounced his opinion that we have not done much by induction, delivers the prediction that we shall not do much at any future time. Verily we think that, before the
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3