﻿188 On the Fundamental Principles of Molecular Physics. 



and deductive, which consists of reasoning based on observation. 

 This is the method which I followed in establishing the funda- 

 mental principles of molecular mechanics. The a priori method 

 would have been absurd. Professor Norton may consequently 

 show his horror of the a priori method as much as he likes : 

 after all, it is only a matter of taste, about which I am not 

 concerned. 

 He continues : 



" Having proved, as he conceives, his propositions, and clinched 

 each one of them with a Q. E. D., he insists that obvious intimations 

 of nature are to be discarded, because the stamp of infallibility can- 

 not be put upon them at once, before the test of availability in the 

 explanation of phenomena has been applied. '* 



This language is rather severe. Let the learned Professor 

 show, if he can, in the first place, that I have not sufficiently 

 proved my fundamental propositions. I should consider it a 

 great favour, as I love nothing more than truth. Secondly, let 

 him bring forward, if he can, a single passage in my e Elements 

 of Molecular Mechanics ' to establish his statement that " I insist 

 that obvious intimations of nature are to be discarded." As for 

 the " stamp of infallibility " I need not say that it is a merry 

 invention of my American critic. 



He then adds : 



'* It was evident from the tenor of my exposition of the subject, 

 that * the established truths ' referred to were merely regarded as 

 having been virtually established, or rendered highly probable by 

 the inductions of science. The claim implied in Professor Bayma's 

 criticism, that they require a higher confirmation, in fact a demon- 

 stration of their truth, is not to be admitted." 



I was perfectly well aware that Professor Norton regarded his 

 3rd and 4th Principles as having been only virtually established. 

 But, as to the fact itself, I was not of his opinion. Hence the 

 claim implied in my criticism was not precisely that those prin- 

 ciples " required a higher confirmation, in fact a demonstration 

 of their truth," but that they had yet to be " virtually esta- 

 blished " in the sense in which Professor Norton uses the word. 

 I adduced reasons to prove this point. Unless my critic suc- 

 ceeds in answering those reasons (as he endeavours to do in the 

 next part of his paper), I maintain that my claim is too reason- 

 able not to be admitted. 



• [To be continued.] 





