<<But they use an archaic Baconian version of
science that, as I explained above, is really unworkable. Food for thought?>>
The obvious answer is: Bacon is always food for thought.
[Pause for sustained laughter and applause]
<< 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.>>
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, 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.>>
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.
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. 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."
Bacon sees the human intellect interacting with demonstration to form axioms,
and help DEFINE our human "notions."
<<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.>>
I don't think this is the right characterization of Baconian or creationist
views of science. Creationists rightly question the artificial bias of
Naturalism. Bacon would have done the same, of course (see the "glass" quote,
above, as well as numerous like sentiments in Novum Organum). But neither say
that "theories have no place." What creationists argue such a thing?
No, it is rather the bias which exists in Naturalism. Bacon might have called
such bias an "idol," as in:
"The idols and false notions which have already preoccupied the human
understanding, and are deeply rooted in it, not only so beset men's minds that
they become difficult of access, but even when access is obtained will again
meet and trouble us in the instauration of the sciences, unless mankind when
forewarned guard themselves with all possible care against them." (Book One,
#38)
Might Naturalism be an idol?
Jim