A response to a professor and a speculation on the sensorium / by Bennet Dowler.

  • Bennet Dowler
Date:
1850
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A response to a professor and a speculation on the sensorium / by Bennet Dowler. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    4/18
    tious were in many respects, fundamentally different from those of Tro- fessor I^ Conte,' though eorroboralivo of liis, so far as the plienomenal history of the alligator after simple decai)it:ition is concerned, with one exception, which is this : Professor Le Contc declares that a decapita- ted alligator cannot have two separate and independent centres of ^o- lition, although his experiments clearly show that the separated head, as well as the body, had each a separate and independent volition. Professor Le Conte makes the following statement, in the New York Journal of Medicine, which is, as I thought, and still think, a full jus- tification of my supposed omission : Dr. Dowler published in the New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal, for July, 1848, ct seq., my [his] experiments quoted mcxtenso, and fully acknowledged their phy- siological bearings. These experiments (.it is myself that is quoted,) refute the universally received doctrine which localizes sensation, in- telligence, volition, &c., exclusively in the brain. After quoting Mr. Solly's views in relation to the seat of sensation and perception, Doctor Dowler further says : ' Now instead of these diluted waters of opinion, let the reader look at Dr. Le Conte's experiments, massive as a moun- tain of granite.' As to priority in Wnsfield of investigation, I have yet to learn that Professor Le Conte had preceded me, though, I concede to him priority of publication, in crocodilian physiology. As early as 1841, I had ascertained that the reflex theory was erroneous. So far as I can learn from Professor Le Conte's paper, his experi- ments on the alligator began, March 10th, 1845, just twenty days be- fore mine. The reason why I published my more recent experiments, is a very good one, namely, these were witnessed by many gentlemen of high professional standing and moral excellence, whose testimony it would be a folly to impeach—a testimony which has been accredited by the most competent critics, as altogether conclusive, with one or two exceptions; exceptions, which appear to proceed, not from any know- ledge of the character of the witnesses, not from any attempt to verify the experiments themselves, but from that illusory test of truth, namely, preconceived, prc-advertised opinion. And here, I beg leave to insert a single paragraph by way of epi.sode to my contributions to physi- ology, inasmuch as these contributions, so far as they occu py simi- lar ground with those of Dr. Le Conte, confirm his completely;and it is verity, rather than priority, which is most important. The essay enti- tled contributions to physiology has called out two dissentino- critics; the one Hesperian; the other Austral, in geograpthical position; both write fluently and able ; both agree very well,^*and he dissent of both is of a three-fold import : first, they grieve atthe unanimity with which the medical press has approved and encouraged my humble la- bors; next, they agree that I am damaging what they call physioloo-y, instead of building it up; and, lastly, they say that my experiments, though witnessed by many most enlightened persons both in and out of the profession, cannot be true, and must be a hoax. They also have several minor strokes of wit against my reasoning from xx. single case'' and they say that ' they are in favor of 'patxent dissection If these