482 Mr. Redfield's Beply to Dr. Hare's 



taining what I deem decisive evidence of the whirling cha- 

 racter of the Providence tornado, published since the first ap- 

 pearance, in America, of his " Additional Objections," and 

 found in this Journal for January 1843, p. 38-52. 



It has probably been perceived, that in advancing his " ad- 

 ditional objections," which are found in this Journal for 

 August last, Dr. Hare seems virtually to abandon the main 

 question of rotation as an issue of fact, as rested on his pre- 

 vious allegations relating to the New Brunswick and Provi- 

 dence tornadoes: for he appears now to rely chiefly, on a 

 petite guerre of criticisms, which have little, if any, relation to 

 definite observations; the only evidence on which the ques- 

 tion really depends. 



I might justly complain of that apparent want of candour 

 which has prevented Dr. Hare from correcting, in any man- 

 ner, the several mistakes and errors, whether of fact, quota- 

 tion, or induction, which were pointed out, long since, in my 

 reply to his first series of "objections" and "strictures." It 

 is this want of candour in the discussion that seems to demand 

 these defensive notices and remarks, which perhaps are more 

 necessary from the fact that few persons, probably, engage in 

 a careful and strict analysis and comparison of the observa- 

 tions which have been made in storms. 



Dr. Hare now says he had "endeavoured to point out va- 

 rious errors and inconsistencies in the theory of storms pro- 

 posed by me, or in the reasoning and assumed scientific prin- 

 ciples on which that theory had been advanced." But it has 

 never been my purpose to " propose " or " advance " a 

 " theory of storms " founded on " reasoning and assumed sci- 

 entific principles." This has, indeed, been attempted by 

 others ; with what success is best known to attentive inquirers : 

 whereas I have mainly endeavoured to exhibit a matter-of- 

 fact view of the actual phenomena of storms, so far as relates 

 to their progress, the violent rotative winds which they exhibit, 

 and the effect of these winds on the barometer. 



Referring to a supposed approval of my views by men of 

 science, Dr. H. says [§ 58], "It strikes me, however, that a 

 fault now prevails which is the opposite of that which Bacon 

 lias been applauded for correcting. Instead of the extreme 

 of entertaining plausible theories having no adequate founda- 

 tion in observation or experience, some men of science of the 

 present time are prone to lend a favourable ear to any hypo- 

 thesis, however absurd in itself, provided it be associated with 

 observations." As already stated, it is "observations" and 

 their results which I have chiefly endeavoured to promulgate. 

 But if it has been attempted to associate a favoured "hypo- 



