[94] 



XIV. Strictures on Professor Dove's Essay " On the Laiso of 

 Storms " introduced by Remarks on Mr. Redfield's recent 

 communication on that subject. By Robert Hare, M.D., 

 Professor of Chemistry in the University of Pennsylvania. 



To the Editors of the Philosophical Magazine and Journal. 

 Gentlemen, 



I OBSERVE that in the Supplementary Number of your 

 Journal for January 184'4 [S. 3. vol. xxiii. p. 48 1], Mr. W. 

 C. Redfield makes great complaints of my apparent want of 

 candour in quoting his opinions and neglecting his replies. Ac- 

 cording to my opinion the errors committed by Mr. Redfield 

 may be advantageously distinguished into two classes : in one, 

 those urged in support of his theory of storms should be placed; 

 in the other,* such as have arisen from his misapprehension of 

 my motives and my arguments. Excepting in a few cases, I do 

 not propose to occupy the pages of your valuable Journal with 

 any notice of the latter class. In publishing my objections to the 

 whirlwind theory, I did not flatter myself with any expectation 

 that they would change Mr. Redfield's opinions. I anticipated 

 that one who could construe the phaenomena of nature in a way 

 so repugnant to my idea of science and reason, would not be 

 likely to accord with me in the validity of any objections which 

 I might urge. Hence I announced the intention of not ad- 

 dressing my arguments to him, and it is my opinion that were 

 I to do so it would only multiply our differences. 



The more I contemplate the whirlwind theory, upon the 

 assumed correctness of which Mr. Redfield and his disciples 

 were circulating instructions to mariners which I deemed 

 fallacious, the more was I convinced of the utter incompetency 

 of any evidence which could be adduced to establish an hypo- 

 thesis involving so much that was inconsistent with all that I 

 knew of the laws of motion, and the meteorological efiicacy of 

 heat and electricity. This opinion was strengthened when I 

 found that the observations by which his theory was repre- 

 sented as established, beyond the reach of my objections, were 

 replete with contradiction and inconsistency. 



Aware that while entertaining these impressions it might be 

 difficult to do justice to what 1 considered as the truth, with- 

 out using language which might seem to be disparaging, in 

 sending my additional objections to Professor Silliman for 

 publication, I requested him to point out any of my language 

 which he might deem unduly unpleasant; accordingly, all 

 that to which my judicious friend objected was modified or left 

 out, though very little change was advised. I have mentioned 

 these facts in order to show that it has npt been from any want 



