"The other day I challenged a particular rendition of Baconism.
Believing that he did not completely eschew an appreciation of
hypothesis, I went back to the source, the Novum Organum itself.
I read, contemplated and found a couple of sections where my
belief was borne out. I printed out a lengthy quote in this
regard.
Well, the fat hit the fan, as they say. I was accused by one
member of everything from abject ignorance and inability to read,
to misstating issues ...."
The other day I contributed on Baconian philosophy, supporting
and expanding on some comments of Steve Clark. I've wanted to
respond to several posts since then, but time has been against
me. As I shall shortly be on vacation, I hope this single
response will help to keep the fat hot!
JB: "I did. In my library I found an old friend, the venerable
classic "The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant. ... I wondered
what the renowned Prof. D. might have to say on the subject of
Bacon and whether or not he indicated a place for hypothesis.
Here is what I found (at pp. 146-147 of my prized 1927 ed.,
ellipses in the original):
"Bacon proceeds to give an admirable description of the
scientific method of inquiry. "There remains simple experience;
which, if taken as it comes, is called accident" ("empirical"),
"if sought for, experiment....The true method of experience
first lights the candle" (hypothesis), "and then by means of the
candle shows the way" (arranges and delimits the experiment);
"commencing as it does with experience duly ordered and digested,
not bungling nor erratic, and from it educing axioms, and from
established axioms again new experiments."
I am not sure why the experience which "first lights the candle"
is linked to "(hypothesis)" by this author. Bacon distinguished
between "Experimenta fructifera" (experiments of fruit) from
"Experimenta lucifera" (experiments of light). The experiments
of fruit result in data, whereas the experiments of light have
the objective "of discovering the natural cause of some effect".
(Novum Organum, Aphorism XCIX). Bacon sees experimentation in
terms of understanding causation, but I have yet to be convinced
that testing hypotheses was explicit in his methodology.
Durant: "(We have here--as again in a later passage which speaks
of the results of initial experiments as a "first vintage" to
guide further research--an explicit, though perhaps inadequate,
recognition of that need for hypothesis, experiment and deduction
which some of Bacon's critics suppose him to have entirely
overlooked.) We must go to nature instead of to books,
traditions and authorities; we must "put nature on the rack and
compel her to bear witness" even against herself, so that we may
control her to our ends. We must gather together from every
quarter a "natural history" of the world, built by the united
research of Europe's scientists. We must have induction."
Bacon was committed to experimentation - but the evidence for it
to be linked to testing hypotheses is yet to be identified. The
second part of Durant's paragraph above is not controversial for
this discussion.
Durant: "But induction does not mean "simple enumeration" of all
the data; conceivably, this might be endless, and useless; no
mass of material can by itself make science. This would be like
"chasing a quarry over an open country"; we must narrow and
enclose our field in order to capture our prey. The method of
induction must include a technique for the classification of data
and the elimination of hypotheses; so that by progressive
cancelling of possible explanations one only shall at last
remain."
This time, the first part of the quote is non-controversial, but
the second part used words I cannot find in Bacon.
[...]
JB: "This discussion was fruitful in sending me back to Novum
Organum. I enjoyed my study and was glad to find a supporter on
this issue in Will Durant. But I also rediscovered Bacon, whom
I had under-appreciated. I especially think his treatment of
"idols of the mind" has much to say to us today, and especially
to metaphysical naturalists."
In my own notes on Bacon, I have a sizeable list of "positive"
aspects of his philosophy, and an equally sizeable list of
"negatives"! If we operate on the principle of remembering the
best in figures from history, Bacon was a great man.
I have a few quotes from Bacon's Aphorisms in "Novum Organum"
which may help appreciate some of the concerns expressed about
Bacon.
"But the course I propose for the discovery of sciences is such
as leaves but little to the acuteness and strength of wits, but
places all wits and understandings nearly on a level" (LXI).
(Bacon's induction leads to a mechanical route to scientific
understanding, apparently by-passing human creativity).
"But the true method of experience on the contrary first lights
the candle, and then by means of the candle shows the way;
commencing as it does with experience duly ordered and digested,
not bungling or erratic, and from it educing axioms, and from
established axioms again new experiments; even as it was not
without order and method that the divine word operated on the
created mass" (LXXXII).
(Further comment on Durant's alleged evidence for 'hypothesis
testing' within Baconian philosophy. Experiments are performed -
but more to show the way than to test hypotheses).
"In the meanwhile, as I have already said, there is no hope
except in a new birth of science; that is, in raising it
regularly up from experience and building it afresh; which no one
(I think) will say has yet been done or thought of" (XCVII).
(One of Bacon's less endearing features here: he could not see
anyone making progress in science in his day. Only he had found
the pathway to understanding the Book of Nature. There is a
"human" aspect to his writings on this point. He had his own
agenda. Even Gilbert's pioneering work on magnetism is treated
harshly.)
"The understanding must not therefore be supplied with wings, but
rather hung with weights, to keep it from leaping and flying.
Now this has never yet been done; when it is done, we may
entertain better hopes of the sciences" (CIV).
(The "wings" are the theoretical systems (dogma) supplied by the
Greek philosophers, the Church theologians, etc., etc. Bacon
wanted to sweep these out of science and to build up from a
foundation of empirical data by induction. I think he regarded
"hypotheses" as too dependent on dogma and therefore unhealthy
for science. He wanted to move much more slowly, using
experiments to elucidate causation and to discover principles and
"axioms" in gradual steps.)
I hope this helps the discussion.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***