United States or Cook Islands ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
I would beg that mineralists, who use such language as this, would consider if it contains a distinct idea of the operation which they would thereby describe, or if it does not contain either a contradiction or an inconceivable proposition. It supposes a calcareous body to be metamorphosed, somehow by means of the mountain acid, into a siliceous body.
Instead then of learning to see the operation of heat as a general principle of mineral consolidation and crystallization, the volcanic philosophers endeavour to explain those particular appearances, which they think inconsistent with fusion, by aqueous infiltration, no otherwise than other mineralists who do not admit the igneous origin of those basaltic bodies.
But to show how mineralists of great merit, gentlemen who have examined systematically and with some accuracy, may impose upon themselves in reasoning for the explanation of mineral appearances from limited notions of things, and from the supposition of these having been formed where they now are found, that is, upon the surface of the earth, I would beg leave to transcribe what this author has said upon this species of petrifaction.
Nothing is more common than this appearance. Cavities are every where found closely lined with crystallizations, of every different substance which may be supposed in those places. These concretions are well known to naturalists, and form part of the beautiful specimens which are preserved in the cabinets of collectors, and which the German mineralists have termed Drusen.
It is not that he is ignorant of what mineralists have already said upon the subject; it is because he sees the incompetency of their explanations in those particular cases; and that he would employ some other more effectual means.
In one view, no doubt, there would appear to be absurdity in the doctrine of metamorphosis, as there is now a days acknowledged to be in that of lusus naturae; and those reasoning mineralists might thus, in the opinion of some philosophers, expose their theory to contempt and ridicule. This is not the light in which I view the subject.
This great misunderstanding of mineralists has such an extensive and baneful effect in the judging of geological theories, that it will be proper here to explain how that has happened, and to shew the necessity of correcting that erroneous principle before any just opinion can be formed upon the subject.
If, therefore, our author does not deny the inference from the state of that mineral alkali, his observation upon it must refer to something which this other example of his is to prove on the opposite side, or to support the aqueous instead of the igneous theory; and, this is a subject which I am always willing to examine in the most impartial manner, having a desire to know the true effect of aqueous solution in the consolidation of mineral bodies, and having no objection to allow it any thing which it can possibly produce, although denying that it can do every thing, as many mineralists seem to think.
These appearances are thought to be observed in the calcedony and ferruginous concretions, which has led some mineralists to conclude, that those concretions had been formed in the same manner, by means of water. We are now to show that these mineral appearances are not analogous to stalactites in their formation, and that they have evidently been formed in a different manner.
But, while mineralists or geologists give us only mere opinions, What is science profited by such inconsequential observations, as are founded upon nothing but our vulgar notions? Is the figure of the earth, e.g. to be doubted, because, according to the common notion of mankind, the existence of an antipod is certainly to be denied?
Word Of The Day