Thinking about Bacon

      Aphorism No. 3 in Bacon's New Organon  Book One states "human knowledge and human power meet in one" and "nature to be commanded must be obeyed." These are two deeply weighted sentences in the sense that they introduce Bacon's stance on humans related to nature and vice versa. It is obvious within the first few aphorisms that Bacon has much respect for Nature, finding man to be but the mere "servant and interpreter" of nature. In aphorism No. 10 Bacon writes, "The subtley of nature is greater many times over than the subtlety of the senses and understanding, so that all those specious meditations, speculations, and glosses in which men indulge are quite far from the purpose, only there is no one by to observe it." Bacon finds the depths of nature to be far from the reach of man, at least at the times he was observing their attempts, and in most instances most of what was retrieved was actually just mistakenly imposed. Nature, being the force that it is, constantly gives forth it's subtleties yet it can neither withhold nor object when wrongly understood and has no ally to affirm or negate the assumptions of the human understanding. Bacon observes the foundation of science in his time as being rooted in and grown from these flimsy assumptions, which he refers to as "anticipations" of nature. He notes the hastiness of man in their process of collecting knowledge, and thus power, mentioning their "command to assent to the proposition" and their failing to "master the thing" (No. 29). These assumptions of man help them to gain "knowledge" quickly and assuredly, as efficiently as a one man Easter egg hunt; simply placing the eggs methodically and later retrieving them. 

In aphorisms No. 30, 31, 32 Bacon admits that he does not wish to challenge the wits of the previous and even ancient authors, rather the methods and ways that have come forth from the fruitfulness of their faculties. Bacon, finding the methods of his time fundamentally in error, condems them, saying whatever may progress from these ways could never discover much, nor solve their own issues, having been birthed from error itself. 

Bacon, in the reverence of Nature, finds mans belief in the use of busted methodologies to understand as sorely mistaken and lead by a hasty eagerness fueled by wishes for power. Bacon hopes to act not as a judge but as a guide in this situation, an ally to nature, presenting a new perspective to enlarge the tunnel vision of Man so that they may be more observant and vulnerable to subtleties of nature. 

S.M

The New Organon Use of Form

Within Part 1 of The New Organon , Bacon makes it clear that some words are not necessary for completing or furthering the study of nature. Words like Quality and Action. However his use of Form becomes conflicted. On the 15th aphorism the words can be found and form is included with these and described these words "All are fantastical and ill defined"(New Organon Book One). Yet he continues to use form in later aphorisms in a supporting way. He didn't really address it and it was left to question why he thinks it 'Fantastical' yet still uses it as a valid word within his research and experiments. At one point in particular in book two he goes to show the investigation of forms, in this case heat. Basing whole aphorism on Forms of Heat, I feel he totally contradicts himself. That being said can form be seen as valid and appropriate rather than fantastical or ill defined word? I think yes he came into a conflict within this word and never decided to clarify that's why it didn't belong in the list in aphorism 15.

Limits of Knowledge

Throughout part one of Bacon's The New Organon, I was intrigued by his desire to know things in nature perfectly and this struggle with his borderline skepticism. Bacon firstly concedes that "The doctrine of those who have denied that all certainty could be attained at all, has some agreement with my way of proceeding at the first setting out" (a.37). However, he then goes on to disagree with these skeptics and argue that things can be known. But later in aphorism 48, it seems like Bacon backtracks a little by saying that "we cannot conceive of any end or limit in the world." Here, my question truly turns into, at what limit do you think that Bacon would argue one can "know" or "conceive"of something? Are there limits on knowledge for Bacon? And if so, what are those limits?

The one statement that stands out from Novum Organum goes as so, and it seems to speak for the entire point of all we have been assigned to read thus far: "But these two rules,
the practical and theoretical, are in fact the same, and that which is most useful in
practice is most correct in theory."

Based on personal interpretation, this statement epitomizes the primary objective of the scientific method. Namely, if a certain experiment, or set of experiments, yields the same results with no deviation (or next to no deviation) in terms of reaction time, measurements, end-products, etc., then such occurrences demonstrated experimentally, firmly show that translating such an experiment in a non-controlled, natural manner, will lead to the same results. Therefore, even though such "firm showing" may not exactly fall along the lines of exact and axiomatic geometric or mathematical proofs associated with pure entities that transcend and model physical/mechanical/biochemical actions (viz., numerical calculations and geometrically perfect structures), it would be absurd to act in such a way that attempts to defy such occurrences, especially when acting ignorantly like so could result in serious injury, death, or a severe setback/unpleasantness of some sort that could have been easily avoidable to a supreme degree by respecting results that have not been necessarily proved beyond objection, but demonstrated with extreme clarity by virtue of the empirical element of observation and tangibility that makes such demonstration(s) viable.

However, that is not to say that all observations and occurrences in nature are immutable and not subject to being proved wrong at some point...some current and long-standing beliefs that we take for granted might indeed turn out to not be entirely correct some day. Until that day though, abiding by the results of such rigorously repeated and meticulously carried out empirical experiments and research could truly mean the difference between life and death, progress or severe setbacks, joy and misery, etc.

On the other hand,and this is strictly this blogger's interpretation, the one exception to the potential mutability of all activities in the natural world (viz., actions/reactions that the scientific community accepts as certain truth), is the realm of mathematics, with geometry and formal logic included in the overarching category of Mathematics.

That is enough for now, but complete elaboration on the above paragraph is imminent.


Also, for the most part, this blogger's reaction to the Organum has been like so:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/1005156_352998588136252_2082324904_n.jpg?oh=f4a385965b7bf6e48bc439e735594ccc&oe=546D6311&__gda__=1417028390_25cdf231495047544542c79d010d7023

Bacon's Idols

Overall, I enjoyed reading Bacon mostly because of the back and forth I encountered. At one moment I found myself agreeing with what he writes, and at another completely disagreeing. In 46 Bacon writes that once the human understanding accepts an opinion it tends to find other things that line up in support of that opinion despite the fact that there is a tremendous amount of evidence which points to its inaccuracy. I find this in large part to be true. 54 ties in with this theme as well where Bacon writes that "Men become attached to certain particular sciences" because in some cases they created it and in others they have devoted a great deal of time studying it.

In 32 Bacon takes a bold and slightly arrogant step when he writes that ancient authors were quite smart, just not smart enough however to use proper methods. 18 and 19 are a bit puzzling to me, in 18 he writes that scientific advancement is nothing more than vulgarity and he suggests that "a method of intellectual operation be introduced". It's hard to imagine any real scientific progress taking place without employing at least a little "intellectual operation". Then in 19 he writes that there are two ways to truth, well actually there is only one way because the way that has been tried thus far leads only to "general" and "middle" axioms. The second and "true" way has not yet been attempted. In 11, Bacon writes that what we now know in science does not lead us to knowing more in science. But does not each new discovery borrow from the last and lend some of itself to those to come?

I found it curious in 2 of Book Two, when Bacon uses the term "Forms- a name which I the rather adopt because it has grown into use and become familiar". Especially when he spends so much time writing of a reinvention so to speak, and stating that "we must begin anew from the very foundations, unless we would revolve forever in a circle with mean and contemptible progress".

I did find the section on the Idols of the Tribe, Cave, Marketplace and Theater to be accurate and effective. I do believe in some sense that it is our nature to distort the nature of things whereby we cling to our own formulation of things after taking part in the conversation of the "they"

Forms in The New Organon

While reading Bacon’s The New Organon, I was a little conflicted regarding his opinion of Forms. In aphorism 51 of Book I, he says, “Matter, rather than forms, should be the object of our attention—its configurations and changes of configuration, and simple action…for forms are figments of the human mind.” Then in aphorism 3 of Book II, he says, “From the discovery of Forms, therefore, results truth in speculation and freedom in operation.” I didn’t understand how he could be criticizing the use of forms, articulating that they are rather useless, and then condoning their use in philosophical pursuits.

However, upon a second look at the text, I gained some clarification that reconciles Bacon’s two statements regarding Forms. In aphorism 2 of Book II, he provides his own definition of “Form”, which is an actual “law, with its clauses.” He wants to utilize the idea of forms but not condone the “error of the human mind that opinion that forms give existence.” This definition is crucial in understanding his later discussion on the topic. Also, in aphorism 9, he talks about how the investigation of Forms constitutes metaphysics, and the study of efficient cause and of matter, the latent process, and latent configuration, constitute physics. Both studies look at different parts of the same things, so both are equally necessary. He also calls metaphysics, “Magic, on account of the broadness of the ways it moves in, and its greater command over nature.” So, while metaphysics and, thus, the study of forms cannot be studied in the same concrete way as its counterpart, physics, it still serves a particular function in Bacon’s philosophy. 

Bacon's Criticism and Call to Change

It was rightly observed that Bacon spends much time promoting his own system for the examination of nature, and yet he doesn't actually illustrate why his method is superior to the one of his time. I am going to disagree with this thought and make the claim that Bacon, in his brief criticisms of axioms of his day, sufficiently illustrated why change was necessary and why his method was superior to the status quo of his time. The first of my two points takes into consideration Bacon's view of the nature of human knowledge and power. He states in 3 [Book One] that "Human knowledge and human power meet in one, for where the cause is not known the effect cannot be produced." This excerpt speaks to the thought that scientific inquiry into nature and knowledge would both effect change and also lead to new paths to explore [particulars to investigate]. This idea of science/knowledge leading to change was not occurring within the thought and science of his time. It would seem that science had stagnated, and worse still was its inability and resistance to change from the old notions. In 25 [Book One] Bacon states that, "The axioms now in use, having been suggested by a scanty and manipular experience and a few particulars of most general occurrences, are made for the most part just large enough to fit and take these in, and therefore it is no wonder if they do not lead to new particulars. And if some opposite instance, not observed or not known before, chance to come in the way, the axiom is rescued and preserved by some frivolous distinction, whereas the truer course would be to correct the axiom itself." Thus we can see that the science of Bacon's time was essentially not fulfilling its purpose of reaching to new areas and particulars. Far from it. It was in fact stagnant and resisted ideas that opposed it. This illustrates a valid criticism and argument as to why the system of his time had to change. His form of observation offered change and a new direction to forsake the scientific mindset of old in an effort to protect the mindset of the future.

Biases and Truth

In The New Organon by Francis Bacon in book1, aphorism 46, he discusses that if one forms an opinion, he will then “draws all things else to support and agree with it.” Even when the evidence against an opinion is greater than the evidence for it, he believes that humans will still stick with their opinion. “The first conclusion colors” and biases our opinions, but how are we to avoid that? We have the “being” of humans, our own biases, the distortion of language, and the influence of philosophy warping the opinions that we form. Even after we form our opinions, those opinions color and blur the way we view other opinions and ultimately the truth. Bacon breaks down all we have to hold our views on, but does not give a way to properly view things. In a world full of biases and distortions, how are we to find truth without having others or ourselves influencing it? How can we find ultimate truth and see through all of the biases?

Thoughts on Bacon's The New Organon

Throughout my reading of Bacon’s The New Organon, I found myself thinking that there is potential in his idea of providing a new method for defining certainty. However, he is never able to support his theory. He identifies what he thinks is wrong with the current method for determining truth, but he never gives any support or evidence as to why it is wrong. An example of this is #15 in Book One (page 91) where he says; “There is no soundness in our notions whether logical or physical. Substance, Quality, Action, Passion, Essence itself, are not sound notions. Much less are Heavy, Light, Dense, Rare, Moist, Dry, Generation, Corruption, Attraction, Repulsion, Element, Matter, Form, and the like. All are fantastical and ill defined.” Here he says that all of these descriptive words are of no use in our search for certainty, but he never says why he believes this. If he were to give an explanation as to why these words are wrong, then I would be more inclined to believe him. Personally, I can identify a number of the words listed in #15 as notions that have value and merit in the search for certainty. This specific excerpt is just an example of Bacon’s lack of evidentiary support. 

Welcome to the Modern Philosophy Commentary internet log for Belmont's Fall 2014 History of Modern Philosophy class. Here we will post our 100-400 word commentaries on the passages of text that interest us most from the readings.

Posts for each week should go up by Friday night, since we will assume that readings for the next week will begin on Saturday and Sunday. Do not post for a past week after Monday's class. After Monday's class all posts should be on the readings of that week.You may skip or miss any two weeks you choose, bringing the total required commentaries to 12. They cannot be made up later in the semester, so keep up as we go.

Here is a sample post:

“Throughout part II of The Leviathan, Hobbes offers many reasons why a monarch is
preferable to an assembly. Perhaps the most fascinating is that the monarch is more likely
to solicit frank and good advice (Leviathan Ch. 25). The monarch can call secret councils
with any subject he likes to get advice on any matter. He or she has total freedom
to pursue the truth by any means necessary. The assembly, by contrast, has to reach
consensus and relies on oratory and rhetoric, arts of persuasion. Hobbes would likely be
critical of our democracy in part because the art of persuasion is more important than the
truth of the counsel given. But is Hobbes right? Does monarchy have this distinct advantage over democracy? We tend to think that deciding as a group will make a decision better and more fair for the group. But does group decision making offer any advantage for pursuing the truth?”

Here is another written by a student last year:

"When the seafarers first arrive at Bensalem [in Francis Bacon's New Atlantis] they are denied entrance, although help would be provided if asked for, but they could not come ashore. Soon after they are approach by the Governor who asks, “Are ye Christians?” (242). The seafarers answer yes and then are allowed ashore, and then allowed to learn of Bensalem. I feel it must be asked, what if they answered negatively? This island is based on the “pure” tenants and ideals of Christianity, which if this were the case then the people would help regardless of the faith of those asking help. 

One need only look at Mathew 25: 34-36 to see that those seeking help must be given it, without question of who they are. Yet, the nature and degree of the help given rests upon the seafarers being Christian. Why does Bacon do this, if he seeks to idealize Christianity?" 

As you can see, both open up a question through commenting on a passage. This points in the direction of further writing and discussion. This is not necessary but it is often more engaging to read and spurs more thought about the passage.

AAD