315 



Reply to Mr, James Ivoiys Answer in No. XXIII. of the 

 Philosophical Magazine and Annals of Philosophy, 



In the Phil, Mag. and Annals for November last, Mr. Ivory 

 has brought forward what he calls an *' Answer" to my article, 

 in No. VII. of the Journal of Science, on his doctrines about 

 sound and heat. A prominent, and perhaps unavoidable fea- 

 ture of Mr. Ivory's answer, which cannot fail to strike the 

 reader's attention, is, the total absence of everything bearing 

 immediately on the points in dispute. The whole affair is got 

 conveniently over, by a series of excuses more or less plau- 

 sible ; while every one of my criticisms remains unanswered 

 in full force. 



Mr. Ivory's first insinuation is, that my strictures are little 

 else than taken from Professor Leslie's article Acoustics. He 

 takes good care to offer no evidence of this. I have only to 

 regret, that, so far from its having been the fact, I had entirely 

 forgotten that that valuable article contained any objection to 

 the theory of sound. I now see, that had I looked into it in time, 

 I might have materially improved my paper. I presume, how- 

 ever, that by endeavouring to sift the analytical investigation 

 to the bottom, I have distinctly pointed out several striking 

 inconsistencies, impossibilities, and unwarrantable assumptions, 

 not before noticed by any one ; and therefore, '* the subject 

 is not left," as Mr. Ivory could wish, " just where I found it." 



Mr. Ivory next remarks on my article, that " whatever pur- 

 pose such discussions may serve, one is at a loss to find out 

 how they can benefit science." A very natural remark to be 

 sure, while the tide of discussion ran against Mr. Ivory. He 

 might just as well say, he was at a loss to see how the destruc- 

 tion of weeds, and other useless or noxious herbs, can benefit 

 the produce of a garden. The removal of spurious productions, 

 especially those wearing the garb of mathematical investiga- 

 tion, being as necessary and beneficial to the progress of 

 science, as the destruction of weeds in the other case. I would 

 rather ask — what benefit can result to science, from an *' An- 

 swer," which leaves unanswered everything it professed to 

 answer ? In particular, it " leaves the analytical theory of 

 sound," which I had impugned, ** to stand on its own merits,'* 



