Re: Random [and the Baconian Compromise]

David J. Tyler (D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk)
Tue, 21 Jan 1997 14:08:43 GMT

On Sunday 19th January 1997, Steve Clark wrote:
"Below, I list some references that give a more complete
understanding of Bacon's philosophy of science:
1. Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the
Human Sciences (1970, Tavistock Publication, London)
2. Paolo Rossi, Francis Bacon: From Magic to Science (Univ
Chicago Press, 1968)
3. Lisa Jardine, Francis Bacon: Discovery and the Art of
Discourse (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1974)."

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.

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". 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. My own view is that whilst it is beneficial to think
clearly about the issues, we should be very careful not to forget
the testimony of the subsequent generation of scholars who
honoured the man.

It is also worth pointing out that whilst the debate about Bacon
has resulted in a consensus, there are dissenters. For example,
Peter Urbach's book: "Francis Bacon's Philosophy of Science: an
account and a reappraisal" (Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, 1987)
sets out to rescue Bacon from his critics. "The standard
interpretation" is presented in chapter one, and the rest of the
book sets out Urbach's alternative.

My own view is that Urbach has some justifiable complaints
against Bacon's critics - but I am not convinced that he succeeds
in making a case for significant change to the "standard
interpretation".

If anyone knows anything about Peter Urbach, I would appreciate
hearing. (I like to know something about the authors I read!).

Jim would probably enjoy Chapter 4: "The idols". It concludes:
"Many of the tendencies to which Bacon pointed are, I think,
real threats to science and it is remarkable that he noticed
them, and saw them as faults, at a time when there was so little
science to go on. Bacon's achievement is the more striking when
we see some of the same points advanced in the present day as if
they were novel".

Best wishes,

*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***