><< Inductive logic has its origins with Aristotle, but it was
>Francis Bacon who took this to the extreme and developed a new
>approach to science called eliminative or Baconian Inductivism.>>
And Jim Bell, not unexpectedly found something to disagree with:
>Bacon is actually a staunch critic of Aristotle. As one commentator puts it:
>"Bacon saw [Novum Organum] as a replacement for Aristotle's Organon. He viewed
>Aristotle's method of inquiry as being more concerned with deduction than
>induction; and what Aristotle says with regard to induction, Bacon thought was
>inadequate for carrying out fruitful scientific research." [Notes from the
>Editors, The Great Books Series, Sir Francis Bacon, 1980]
So? I only said that inductive logic could be traced back to Aristotle and
that Bacon preferred a different type of inductive logic, so what's the
point Jim?
Nevertheless, I'll amplify what Jim wrote by saying that Bacon took issue
with Aristotelian enumerative induction and proposed eliminative induction
as an alternative. Enumerative logic goes like this:
Gold, copper and lead are ductile.
Gold, copper and lead are metals,
Therefore, metals are ductile.
The limitation of this is that a single, unexamined case may exist to
destroy the logic, and this renders tentative, any conclusion based upon
syllogism. Bacon sought to establish a different approach to science because
he believed that reach a conclusion on the basis of 'an enumeration of
instances' was invalid because it would be 'no conclusion, but a conjecture'.
For this reason, Bacon introduced eliminative inductive logic that would not
be held hostage to a single contradictory instance. The essential feature
of his logic is that data could be so displayed as to eliminate all false
hypotheses, leaving behind singular truth. For instance, in trying to learn
what heat was, Bacon listed things associated with heat, such as sunlight,
fire warm springs and quicklime mixed with water. Then he listed deviations
from these examples, such as moonlight, cold winds, ashes mixed with water,
etc. From this he eliminated several causes of heat, such as terrestrial
causes since it was associated with sunlight. Nor could heat be associated
with light, because moonlight eliminated this possibility.
Basically, as John Stuart Mill pointed out, we often use both forms of
induction as tools of logic, and both have inherent limitations.
Nevertheless, the intent of my earlier post was not to discuss the finer
points of inductive logic, but to point out that Bacon proposed an inductive
method of science that relied on extreme and unreasonable attempts to
eliminate all subjectivism in the method.
SC
><<So, the way that science is to be done, according to Bacon, is for a
>completely rational observer to record observational data in some
>purely objective manner, totally free from all prejudices and having no
>prior preference concerning what theory should be correct.>>
JB
>Yes, Bacon was all for reducing prejudice. "The mind of man is far from the
>nature of a clear and equal glass, wherein the beams of things should reflect
>according to their true incidence; nay, it is rather like an enchanted glass,
>full of superstition and imposture, if it be not delivered and reduced."
>
>This is still a worthy goal in scientific pursuit.
No Jim. Similar to your responses to Howard Van Till (putting words in his
mouth) and to me (reconstructing what I say by misquoting or quoting out of
context), you do the same thing to Bacon. Bacon did not want to REDUCE
prejudice (read subjectivity), he wanted to ELIMINATE it. Is this what you
propose for science? Do you really mean to defend the Baconian scientific
method?
JB
>Steve criticizes Bacon for an "unworkable science", viz.:
><<1. any preselection of the data that are recorded represents an
>unacceptable bias and
>
>2. to make an hypothesis, is to inappropriately inject
>subjectivism into the method.>>
>
>I don't find this in Bacon.
This says more about your scholarship, Jim, than about Baconian science.
Keep looking.
JB
Indeed, the opposite seems evident in this
>selection from Novum Organum (Book One, #105)[e.g., "proper rejections and
>exclusions"]:
>"In forming axioms, we must invent a different form of induction from that
>hitherto in use; not only for the proof and discovery of principles (as they
>are called), but also of minor, intermediate, and, in short, every kind of
>axioms. The induction which proceeds by simple enumeration is puerile, leads
>to uncertain conclusions, and is exposed to the danger from one contradictory
>instance, deciding generally from too small a number of facts, and those only
>the most obvious. But a really useful induction for the discovery and
>demonstration of the arts and sciences, should separate nature by proper
>rejections and exclusions, and then conclude for the affirmative, after
>collecting a sufficient number of negatives....But much of what has never yet
>entered the thoughts of man must necessarily be employed, in order to exhibit
>a good and legitimate mode of induction or demonstration, so as even to render
>it essential for us to bestow more pains upon it than have hitherto been
>bestowed on syllogisms. The assistance of induction is to serve us not only in
>the discovery of axioms, *but also in defining our notions.* Much indeed is to
>be hoped from such an induction as has been described."
Jim, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when incorrect
statements are made with such confidence.
In this quote Bacon states his case against enumerative logic just as I
described above.
If you look more closely, you will find quotes from Bacon that support his
rigidly objective approach to inductive science. For a nice discussion of
this topic, I recommend Chapter 6 of SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY by Derek Gjersten.
SC
><<With this Baconian definition of science, creationists can point to the
>fact that evolution is not a fact, but a theory, and since theories have
>no place in this inductivist view of science, creationists argue that
>evolution is not science. But they use an archaic Baconian version of
>science that, as I explained above, is really unworkable.>>
JB
>I don't think this is the right characterization of Baconian or creationist
>views of science.
Again, what you think is right exists in your mind and has no basis in
reality. This is why you don't respond to WHAT I say, but respond to what
you THINK I say as it fits with your caricature of science and scientists.
This is the way that I described Baconian science in an earlier post:
"So, the way that science is to be done according to Bacon, is for a
completely rational observer to record observational data in some
purely objective manner, totally free from all prejudices and having no
prior preference concerning what theory should be correct. Data
collected in such an objective manner are then organized by the
logical process of induction, again without the influence of any
presuppositions. From this, correct generalizations will emerge out of
the organized data."
The following is the definition of science offered by the ICR:
"A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected
body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts
systematically classified and more or less colligated by
being brought under general laws which include trustworthy
methods for the discovery of new truths within this domain."
Both paragraph describe a similar inductive point of view about science that
is just not accurate.
JB
Creationists rightly question the artificial bias of
>Naturalism. Bacon would have done the same, of course
Indeed! Talk about convenient reconstruction. Bacon would have questioned
ALL bias including a priori theories, and bias that most of agree is
unavoidable because humans are not machines and because science is a
creative process. Besides, in his quest for total objectivity, Bacon would
criticize the bias of creationists as strongly as the bias of others.
Notice too, that with Jim's comment, there is a subtle change in the topic
of discussion. Suddenly, Bacon is a "theistic realist" (appointed by Jim,
naturally) who fully supports Jim's anti-naturalism agenda. Since this is
a rhetorical tool and is not related to my earlier post, I'll not pursue
this change of direction.
If you want to talk about naturalism, Jim, make your own post rather than
changing the focus of what I write.
Again, I invite you to debate my ideas rather than reconstructing and
avoiding them. Argue with what I say rather than with what you want me to say.
[clip]
JB
>Might Naturalism be an idol?
Maybe maybe not. So what? Might supernaturalism be an idol?
The agenda of the self-annointed "realist" is summarized by this broad
question.
Steve
____________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
____________________________________________________________