252 Mr. Redfield’s Second Reply to Dr. Hare. 
I should assume, therefore, the correction and refutation of all the 
several allegations and errors contained in his second attack, will 
hardly be expected. Perhaps the following comments may suffice. 
Humble as are the claims on which my “ meteorological repu- 
tation” rests, Ido not perceive that it depends so much on the 
particular “course” which my opponent has taken, as he seems 
to imagine, (par. 41); nor that it is likely to be materially affect- 
ed by his writings on meteorology. But should the fact prove 
otherwise, I will endeavor to bear it with becoming philosophy. 
Referring to the approval of my views by men of science, 
he says: “It strikes me, however, that a fault now prevails 
which is the opposite of that which Bacon has been applauded 
for correcting. Instead of the extreme of entertaining plausible 
theories having no adequate foundation in observation or expeti- 
ment, some men of science of the present time are prone to lend 
a favorable ear to any hypothesis, however in itself absurd, pro- 
vided it be associated with observations.” Now, as before stated, 
it is “ observations” and their results which I have mainly en- 
deavored to promulgate: and in relation to storms, if it has been 
attempted to associate “hypothesis,” whether “absurd” or oth- 
erwise, “ with observations,” it would appear to have been by my 
opponents ; and yet the seeming dislike to “ observations” may be 
somewhat unfavorable to this construction.—That my “Reply” 
was properly “so called,” may be inferred from the ‘evasive 
“course,” as well as title of his rejoinder; and it appears likewise 
from the tone and character of the succeeding paragraphs as well 
as from the closing sentences of that under notice, where “ relia- 
ble facts‘and observations,” —“ established character of storms”— 
and “the whole modern meteorological school” are quoted in @ 
form of words and connexion which I did not use. 
It appears to be difficult for Dr. Hare to give accurate quota- 
tions, unless in the cases in which he ventures to give a refer- 
ence. Thus, in par. 43, he succeeds in adducing more correctly 
than in his previous quotations, my remark that “ the grand error 
ito which the whole school of meteorologists appear to have 
, Consists in ascribing to heat and rarefaction the origin and 
stpportof the great atmospheric currents,” &c, This is a question 
1eric dynamics which I believe has not been sufficiently 
ate by — writer. The remark quoted was made inci- 
dentally, on Mr. Espy’s first attempt to discredit 
y, On 
