Francis Bacon goes as far as to use the word evil to describe the philosophies that oppose the methods presented in The New Organon (66, 63). Even though Bacon viewed the type of rationalism proposed by Aristotle as a hindrance to human thought, it is only natural for one to come to this conclusion when he is fixed on the concept of utility and the promotion of what he refers to as works. If one is to recognize metaphysics, he is to cease any type of utility that Bacon would agree with. Although this might be the case, Bacon's inductive methods are contradictory towards his own goals, which he clearly states in the preface, "are to open a new way for understanding." There are in fact some obvious benefits of this system, particularly when opposing Aristotelian logic and considering the time in history. But, this is not to say that Bacons proposed methods are without fault.
The way I see it, there will always be a battle between the principle of empiricism and the principle of rationalism due to the simple fact that a false conclusion can come from true premises. This is something that inductive methods will have to deal with. (Perhaps Bacon does later in his writings)
Consider the relationship between voltage, resistance and current. V=I*R. This has been empirically verified and induced (particular--->generalization) to whats called Ohm's law. Suppose that, unknown to us, V=(S-T). Now, we have reached a false conclusion. In this case, Bacon's inductive methods have not only led us into the wrong, but they have stopped us from digging deeper towards the truth.
Additional thoughts for commentary:
Induction will always be based on a percentage of empirical verifications. As those verifications increase, the likelihood of its truthfulness increase. Any cases that are not tested are subject to the law of contradiction. Depending on Bacon's goal, this may or may not be seen as a problem. If he seeks truth, its problematic. But if he seeks utility, wouldn't matter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This post made me think for a moment about Ohm's law. The definitions of Volt, Ampere, and Ohm are all constituted in such a way that Ohm's law has to be true. If we analyze a circuit and observe that V does not, in this case, equal I*R, we automatically conclude that there is extra resistance in the wires, or capacitance between parallel wires, or a resistor is broken, or something to that effect. If there were some other relationship between voltage, current, and resistance, then by definition we wouldn't be looking at an electronic circuit.
ReplyDeleteNow, clearly we are able draw false conclusions. But I think that the error we're making has to be much more subtle than simply not doing enough empirical tests to find the right counterexample. I'm just not sure what that error is. Does anybody out there have an idea?
Could error be the product of the relationship between things in themselves and experiment? Experiments limit the relevant variables and do not reproduce entirely the thing itself. SO the formula is true for the situations that are constrained like experiments are, false if the frame of experiment leaves something relevant (not to the hypothesis but to nature itself) out.
ReplyDelete