Sneezing: Fallacious Observations. 191 



nose by means of the blast of air. They felt the irritation 

 of the nose, and found that sneezing was usually followed 

 by relief Without examining carefully the act of sneezing, 

 to see whether the air did or did not go through the nose, 

 they assumed that it did, hence the description. It is of 

 course possible that, in some cases where observation was 

 made, abnormal conditions of the palate may have permitted 

 portions of the air to get to the nose. As the act of sneezing 

 is involuntary, while that of coughing is not, it is impossible 

 to study the phenomena of the former, except in an im- 

 promptu and largely subjective manner. The vocal cords 

 can be examined with the laryngoscope in coughing, but not 

 in sneezing. Objective examination in sneezing is very 

 limited, by reason of the nature of the act. It seems to me, 

 however, perfectly clear that we have another example of the 

 manner in which hypothesis has biassed observers. They 

 have unconsciously endeavoured to make the facts fit the 

 theor}'. An observation once made and stated by a com- 

 petent authority has probably been copied from one work 

 into another, until of late years the great importance given 

 to phj^siological respiratory reflexes by physicians has caused 

 the matter to be more closely investigated. 



Greville MacDonald's ingenious theory of the value of 

 sneezing, physiologicall}', may or may not be accurate. 

 The fact, however, that patients suffering from eye disease 

 frequently sneeze when exposed to a strong light, indicates 

 the necessity for caution before assuming that sneezing has 

 any value whatever. It may have as little to do with 

 normal physiological function in the human being as appa- 

 rently has the patellar reflex, the cremasteric reflex, or 

 some other of the general reflexes. If sneezing is essential 

 to the removal of a foreign body from the anterior portion 

 of the nose, it is very difficult to understand why coughing 

 or blowing through the nose would not be equally serviceable. 

 As Greville MacDonald justly ob.serves, "it is quite certain 

 that sneezing alone cannot produce the rush of fluid from 

 the.nose. It requires a local determining agent. At present^ 

 it seems to me the only conclusion that can be safely arrived 

 at, is the Agnostic one." Greville MacDonald's explanation 

 is plausible, and has the merit, as far as I know, of standing 

 alone. 



How much more fallacious observation of a similar 

 character exists in all departments of science, it is impossible 

 to conjecture, but I think it fairly certain that, if the 



