702 DISCREPANCY OF PROFESSIONAL OPINION. 
court really with some knowledge of their profession, and who, it is 
to be taken for granted, had a character at stake, how could any 
other exist than “discrepancy of opinion]” 
But between even the acknowledgedly qualified themselves—- 
between veterinary surgeons possessing knowledge and experience, 
and reputation as well—there will on occasions occur “ discrepancy 
of opinion.” All over the world “ doctors differ.” Perhaps, it is 
but right, or at all events natural, they should do so. Nay, it 
would appear that doctors differed more than any other class of 
men. How is this? Is it that they profess a science of a more 
speculative and disputative character than other of the liberal arts] 
—or is it that the professors, from education or habit, are, inter se, 
more argumentative or contentious than members of other profes¬ 
sions ] That medical science is one yet a long way off from perfection, 
every day, every hour, indeed, brings something before the scene 
but too sorrowfully to remind us. Its total powerlessness over the 
direful pestilence—the cholera —which has only now—if, indeed, it 
has quite—departed from us, is a terrible opprobrium of medical 
ignorance and insufficiency. And upon that subject there has pre¬ 
vailed, as we all know, “ discrepancy of opinion” enough among 
medical men, to cast physic, and its practitioners together, in the 
eye of the public, all “ to the dogs.” 
In mathematical science, certain data correctly worked out lead 
to certain results. But in medicine the very data we have to 
work upon are apt to prove fallacious. “ The existence of disease 
cannot be determined by weight or measure;” signs and symptoms 
alone must determine its seat and character; and it will depend 
upon the discernment and ability and experience of the doctor to 
what extent from such telegraphic indications its nature and tend¬ 
ency is developed. Here, then, lies open a wide field for diversity 
and “ discrepancy” of opinion. Scientific cultivation of this field 
seems to us to be every day drawing its boundaries into narrower 
compass; and yet, when fresh fields can be descried opening be¬ 
yond the one we are working in, we seem to grow discouraged, 
and to doubt that our investigations are doomed ever to have an 
end. 
We have no right to quarrel or find fault with the evidence of 
a professional man admitted to be intelligent, and guaranteed to 
