The Indian prince, who refused to believe the first relations concerning the effects of frost, reasoned justly; and it naturally required very strong testimony to engage his assent to facts, that arose from a state of nature, with which he was unacquainted, and which bore so little analogy to those events, of which he had had constant and uniform experience. Though they were not contrary to his experience, they were not conformable to it.
Izotzaren efektuei buruzko lehen kontaketak sinetsi nahi ez zituen printze indiarrak zuzen arrazonatu zuen, eta testigantza sendo bat behar izan zuen, noski, berarentzat hain ezezagun zen natur egoera batetik sortuak eta bere esperientzia iraunkor eta uniforme barneko gertaerekin hain analogia gutxi zuten gertakariei baietza eman aurretik.