Eine Nr. 87 PARK ROW NEW YORK. Begriffe der Scientific American Supplement. Vol. II. Nr. 40. Für die Woche zum 30. September 1876 endet. Der Scientific American Supplement. Aciatifir 9. Chirurgie VS. PHROENOLOGY. Für eine lange Zeit die beliebte Pseudowissenschaft der phroenology wenig Ermutigung aus der Weiterentwicklung der ex-akt Wissen in der Abteilung der zerebralen Physiologie und Pathologie erhalten hat. Tatsächlich seine Ansprüche waren ziemlich einheitlich durch die bessere Klasse von Studenten des Gehirns ly widersprochen. Aber innerhalb eines Jahres oder tw der aktuellen wissenschaftlichen Stellungnahme wurde schien ein wenig in Richtung der phroenology zu drehen
Dieses Bild kann kleinere Mängel aufweisen, da es sich um ein historisches Bild oder ein Reportagebild handel
a NO. 87 PARK ROW NEW YORK. TERMS THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SUPPLEMENT. Vol. II. No. 40. For the Week ending September 30 1876. The Scientific American Supplement . Aciatifir ninth. SURGERY VS. PHRENOLOGY. For a long time the popular pseudo-science of phrenology received little encouragement from the advancement of ex act knowledge in the department of cerebral physiology and pathology. Indeed its pretensions were quite uniform ly repudiated by the better class of students of the brain. But within a year or tw the current of scientific opinion has seemed to turn a little toward phrenology the theory of brain action through localized functions somewhat as rent confirmation from the experiments of Dr. Ferrier in England and those of certain German and French experi physiologists have been led in consequence to admit that there might be more in phrenology than Science had been able to see : whereat phrenologists were naturally much elated. Their joy however is likely to be of short duration. That most acute observer and experimental investigator in the department of cerebro-spinal physiology and pathology Dr. Brown-Sequard is delivering a course of professional lectures in London calculated not only to knock the last shadow of a prop out of the foundation of phrenology but to compel a practical revolution in the views now generally accepted by physiologists and physicians with regard to the physiology and pathology of the brain. He boldly asserts knowledge are grounded on data wrongly observed or wrongly interpreted; and what is more he is presenting an array of experimental and clinical evidence in support of his position which his opponents will find hard to explain away. His argument runs in this wise : When we witness a loss of function in connection with a lesion of a part of the brain we are naturally led to suppose that the lost function has its seat in the part we find altered. So to though in a less degree we are disposed to admit that if certain mus cles contr
