Sketch of the revolutions of medical science, and views relating to its reform / by P.J.G. Cabanis ; translated from the French, with notes, by A. Henderson.

Date:
1806
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Sketch of the revolutions of medical science, and views relating to its reform / by P.J.G. Cabanis ; translated from the French, with notes, by A. Henderson. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

    439/446
    419 ments; and affirms, that the moll illiterate meclianics were , equally entitled to the appellalicn of philofophers, and that the only difference between the two was, that the latter confeiied their ignorance, but the former would not con- fefs theirs. All the errors, however, into wliich they had fallen, are difcovered by him to proceed from their rejec- tion of his hypothecs of Circular Motion ; line qua hypothefi,” he tells them, quantiiscunque labor, ars, ‘‘ fumptus’, ad reriun natiiralium invifibiles can fas inveni- endas adhibetur, frullra erit.” p. 8. In another part of his Dialogue, he. triumphantly alks; Quorfum tantus ap- paratiis et fumptus Machinarum faftu difficilium, ut ea- tenus tantum prodiretis ouantum ante prodierat IIobbit(s9 Cur non inde potiiis incepillis ubi ille debit? Cur Princi- piis ab eo-pofitis non eftis ufi? Ad caulas autem propter quas prolicere ne paululum quidem potuiftis, nec poteritis, accedunt etiam alise; ut odium Ilobbii, quia nimium libere fcripferat de Acadcmiis veritatem. Nam ex eo tempore irati phylici et mathematici veritatem ab eo venicntem non recepturos fe palam profeffi funt. Et quod paucillimi Hint eorum qui fcientias prolitentur, qui veritates difficiles ab aliis quam a fe inventas effe, non doleant.” p. 23. At the fame time I am aware, that many paffages may be quoted Ironi Hobbes’ works, in which doctrines of a very different tendency are maintained and exemplilied. But it will be difficult to bnd an excul'e for the arrogance, petu- lance, and llliberality, of the above and other limilar re- marks; efpecially, if we conlider, that they were adduced in fupport of a vague hypothefis, w hich was in contradi6tion to fa6ls, and w hich had beert already difproved by the moft Oriking and conclulive experiments,—the experiments of Torricelli, of Pafcal, and of Boyle! NOTE