Letter to John Forbes ... on his article entitled 'Homœopathy, allopathy, and young physic' contained in the number [XLI] of the [British and Foreign Medical] Review for January, 1846 / by William Henderson.

  • Henderson, William, 1810-1872.
Date:
1846
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Letter to John Forbes ... on his article entitled 'Homœopathy, allopathy, and young physic' contained in the number [XLI] of the [British and Foreign Medical] Review for January, 1846 / by William Henderson. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    63/78 (page 57)
    or more, from a blind attachment to the notions they cherish, as from a deficiency of probability or proof in favour of the doctrines they reject. Hard-headed scepticism of this, the ordinary quality, utterly unfits men for philosophical and scientific investigations on a subject to which they are op- posed. If it be beset with sources of mistake, the biassed mind of the sceptic can see nothing but these ; lays hold of them with avidity, and delights itself in the sapient convic- tion that, because there are some things fallacious in the sub- ject of its hasty and partial study, there can be nothing that is true. If Jenner had started on his researches regarding vaccination with the antipathies of a hard-headed sceptic, wedded to a foregone conclusion, as all hard-headed sceptics are, his studies might easily have issued in a deliberate refu- tation of the popular supposition, in his neighbourhood, that cow-pox was a protection against small-pox ; and the world might yet have wanted the blessing of his discovery. As it was, with all his determination to know the truth, he almost yielded before the sources of fallacy he had to encounter. How speedily would a hard-headed sceptic,—whether an In- genhouz, or a Rowley,—have closed his inquiries on the sub- ject, when he had ascertained that the cow milkers often con- tracted sores on their hands in the course of their occupation, and were not, therefore, exempt from small-pox. What a clear proof that all the whispers to the contrary were old women’s fables ! What truly sceptical spirit could want more satisfactory evidence ? But Jenner’s head having been made of penetrable stuff,—not yet become indurated and sap- less by the seasoning processes of scepticism,—admitted the idea that, though the circumstances in question were undeni- ably true, they might not constitute the whole truth. He persevered in his researches, and obtained a glorious reward of his labour. Scepticism is much more a matter of feeling than of judg-. ment; and there is ample reason for believing that the gene- ral scepticism of the profession regarding Homoeopathy is ow- ing far more to a dislike of it than to any convictions of the understanding at variance with its pretensions. In almost utter ignorance of its principles and practice, many, no doubt, like yourself, think the general adoption of it would be “ very unfortunate for medicine,” and therefore, hate it with all the sincerity of hard-headed scepticism, as the supposed enemy of their favourite “ phantom.” And yet it is this temper which men ridiculously mistake for the philosophic—for that which preserves the mind neutral in the investigation of con-