Answer to Dr. Hare's Letter. 113 
xviii. I will now turn to such parts of your critical remarks as - 
may require attention. A man who advances what he thinks to 
be new truths, and to develope principles which profess to: be 
more consistent with the laws of nature, than those already in 
the field, is liable to be charged, first with self-contradiction ; then 
with the contradiction of facts; or he may be obscure in hai ex- 
pressions and so justly subject és certain queries ; or he may be 
found in non-agreement with the opinions of others. The first 
and second points are very important, and every one subject to 
such charges, must be anxious to be made aware of, and also to 
set himself free from, or-to acknowledge them. The third is also 
a fault to be removed if possible. The fourth is a matter of but 
small consequence in comparison with the other three ; for as 
every man, who has the courage, not to say rashness, to form 
an opinion of his own, thinks it better than any from which he 
differs, so it is only deeper investigation and, most generally, fu- 
ture Investigators who can decide which is in the right. 
am afraid I shall find it rather difficult to refer to your 
letter. I vill however reckon the paragraphs in order from the 
top of each page, considering that the first which has its begin- 
ning first in the page. In referring to my own matter, I will 
employ the usual figures for the paragraphs of the experimental 
researches, and small Roman numerals for those of this commu- 
nication. 
xx. At par. 3, p. 1, you say you cannot reconcile my language 
at 1615 with that at 1165. In the latter place I have said, I be- 
lieve ordinary induction in all cases to be an action of contiguous 
particles ; and in the former, assuming a very rear 
on the particle next to it, though that should be half an inch off. 
With the meaning which I have carefully attached to the word 
contiguous, (xvi,) I see no contradiction here in the terms used, 
nor any natural impossibility, or improbability in such an action. 
Nevertheless, all ordinary induction is to me an action of con- 
tiguous particles, being particles at insensible distances ; induc- 
tion across a vacuum is not an ordinary instance, and yet I do 
not perceive that it cannot come under the same principle of 
Vol. xx51x, No. 1.—April—June, 1840. 15 
