| | | Our second illustration of “Catchpenny Science” is one | calling for more reprobation than the first. Dr. Lindley Kemp | only touched our pockets ~ Mr. Neilson threatens our health. | The ignorance which runs through the Phasis of Matter | is harmless ~~ the ignorance which Mr. Neilson | preaches is specious and dangerous. As we intend to test | this gentleman’s pretensions pretty vigorously, it is | necessary that at the outset we isolate him from the many | honourable, and the few eminent, men who believe in | Mesmerism and its curative powers. We call Mr. Neilson a | Mesmeric Quack, because he ahs all the qualities of a | quack; but we no more mean to apply the same term to all | mesmerists than those who speak of a medical quack mean | to insult the medical profession. | Mr. Neilson begins with chapters of citations tending to | discredit medicine. he quotes the confessions of eminent | practitioners and the sarcasms of others, to show that the | theory and practice of medicine are extremely uncertain, | mere gropings in the dark, liable to very gross errors, and | seldom to be relied on with the confidence due to exact | science. He also shows, in some telling citations, how | obstinately the profession has opposed all novelties, and | how difficult it has been to get even valuable discoveries | brought into general use. As a preliminary to an exposition of | the present state of medicine, or even as an excuse for the | trial of a new curative agent, by an instructed physician, | these chapters would be both effective and justifiable. But Mr. | Neilson is so deplorably ignorant of physiology and | pathology that he does not see how wiser men have | necessarily been sceptical; and he is so far removed | from the proper standing=point that he cannot appreciate the | honourable candour which avows uncertainty in the | presence of difficulties so great. He has no | uncertainty ~~ he has the perfect confidence of ignorance. | He avows no hesitation, for he has to secure | patients, and doubt might scare them. | Nothing can be simpler than his system. he says | Such elementary ignorance will make every instructed | reader stare; but the public is easily imposed on by simple | formulas, and this is simple enough in all conscience. | Nothing can be simpler. A poison is taken up into the | circulating current, and we call that disease; but | the real cause is

“disturbance of the brain-force,”

| whatever that may be; and Mr. Neilson will send a flow of | brain-force to the rescue, which shall at once neutralize the | poison and restore health. You ask, perhaps, how the | brain-force can act thus chemically on a poison, and Mr. Neilson | will be ready with an answer, no doubt, for he assures us | that Carbonate of lime, phosphates, prussic acid, | arsenic ~~ any solid ~~ need only come in contact with the | organism, and at once the brain-force acts upon it,

| “imbues it.”

The sole difficulty is to cause this | all-imbuing agent to flow in sufficient quantities, and | in the right direction. You understand? | If Mr. Nielson knew his A B C of physiology, he | would know that the brain and nerves themselves are | dependent on the organic functions; he would know, | moreover, that organic functions go on with perfect regularity | in animals which have no nerves; and a little more | instruction would teach him that even animals endowed with | nerves are sometimes born without brains, and | yet in them the organic functions, as well as some of the | automatic actions, sucking &c., are nevertheless in force. | But Mr. Neilson has so profound a contempt for physiology | that he will not listen to its assertions. he has a physiology of | his own, a

“patent”

science, borrowing nought from | the frivolous pedantry of the schools. Here is a specimen of | it: ~~ | Mr. Neilson has heard of electrical fishes, and hearing that | they have the power of

“willing or projecting”

their | electricity beyond their own systems, he thinks it a | conclusive argument in favour of man being able to

“will | or project”

his electricity beyond himself, and thus | curing, instead of destroying, other beings by the projection. | Theorizing of this kind is very specious and acceptable to | certain minds ~~ the more entirely ignorant they are, the | more readily do they assent. Alas! the comparative | anatomist, with his pedantic facts, shows us that these | electrical fishes are endowed with a special organ, which is | common to the species, but which is absent in | other species, and in man. If Mr. Neilson asks, Why, may not | man have that organ, as well as the torpedo or | the malapteruus? the only answer is that | man has it not ~~ the fact replies to the question. As | well ask, Why may not man squirt ink like the cuttle-fish or | bite like an adder? As well ask, Why does not Mr. Neilson | write sense? Moreover, the trifling anatomical objection may | be ignored, and still Mr. Neilson’s position will not be less | absurd. He assumes that man has a

“brain-force”

| which can be projected; electrical fishes project theirs, and | destroy with it their prey; ergo, when man projects | his (if the analogy is worth anything), it will destroy, or | injure, those on whom it is projected. | Throughout this pretentious volume, we have seen no | evidence of even a superficial acquaintance with physiology | ~~ hence the supreme confidence of its dogmatism. Now, if | the medical profession is in no satisfactory condition ~~ if the | science of ages, aided by the empirical experience of ages, | still leaves the wise physician dubious ~~ are we, in our | sufferings, to fly to the nescience of a Neilson ~~ to the | ready confidence of quacks? That is the real question. Are | we to reject the

“little knowledge”

as a

| “dangerous thing,”

and submit to the

“no | knowledge”

which never hesitates? | Before quitting this miserable book, we wish to say one word | on the argument for clairvoyance which Mr. Neilson repeats, | and which is often urged. The essential point in clairvoyance | is the seeing without eyes; and to prove this, a bandage is | often placed over the clairvoyant’s eyes, through which, we | are assured, no ray of light can penetrate. The explanation | usually offered is, that

“it is not the eye, but the mind | which sees;”

and when the nervous system of the | patient is in a high state of exaltation, the optic nerve can | dispense with the visual organ. A little elementary instruction | would at once render such an explanation untenable. | No-one doubts that the nerves may | be affected by other agencies besides that of light, but to | see without light is a contradiction of terms. If I | see the printed letters of a book and can read them, the rays | of light must first pass through the lens in my eye. They must | be concentrated into a focus before they will produce any | image. If my lens be imperfect, the image will not be | produced ~~ the rays of light will continue to travel from the | letters, but they will not be bent into a focus. Let these rays | impinge upon the retina as long as may be, no image | will be produced, no letters will be read ~~ a visual | organ is essential to the production of the special sensation | of vision. if believers in clairvoyance choose to find refuge in | the mere assertion of a miraculous power of sight, they must | at least relinquish every attempt at scientific explanation. | They may credit what miracles they please; but for scientific | explanations, scientific evidence alone suffices.