>Whilst agreeing with Steve's comments about Bacon and his
>philosophy of science, I am a tad more appreciative of Jim's more
>positive attitude to the man. I have a few comments which I hope
>are constructive at this point in the exchange.
Until recent posts, I have focused narrowly on Bacon's inductivist view of
science which has been criticised by philosophers ever since he penned it.
However, in recent posts, my focus has been on the Baconian compromise, or
doctrine of two texts, for which I greatly admire him.
>Historians of science are only really effective if they are able
>to evaluate individuals in the context of the world in which they
>lived. Otherwise, we end up with cardboard figures who exist
>only in the minds of "the wise".
I enthusiastically agree with this statement.
Bacon was, in his day, very
>influential, and many in the Royal Society expressed their debt
>to him for liberating them from the dominance of dogma and
>showing a better way to explore God's creation. It seems to me
>that there has been a tendency to rubbish Bacon - by emphasising
>that few of his key ideas were original and that little has
>survived into contemporary thinking about the philosophy of
>science.
I believe that Bacon's most important contribution to science and faith is
his doctrine of two texts. It is easy to see why this may have little
influence with secular scientists and philosophers. This may explain, in
part, some of the tendency to trash Bacon. However, I view him as a paragon
of a believing scientist. He still provides an excellent example.
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
____________________________________________________________