| After having read, along side each of you, through much of Francis Bacon’s The New Organon, and after sharing in our discussion on Wednesday, I find myself still fascinated by the notion of Bacon’s outlook on the sciences. Indeed, as I was reading and thinking I couldn’t help but notice his regular mention of the chemists as agents of foolhardy science (Aphorisms 29, 54, 64, 66, etc.). In fact, he distinguishes them from possessing any real science at all. All the same, Bacon’s argument is construed in such a way so as to elevate science and the discovery of knowledge through a new practice of observation and experiment. If so, the question then arises, to what extent do not chemists also make informed assumptions based on the observation of general axioms through the practice of induction? Now, granted, at Bacon’s time, the practice of chemistry may have been slightly more geared towards the study of alchemy (intended, perhaps, more for the spiritual edification of the scientist than for the discovery of the science), but my questions then becomes, for what reason does Bacon then attack the very inductive method he proposes? Is his frustration with the chemists limited strictly to his desire to “give to faith only that which is faith’s?” (65). Is he accusing the chemists of a dogma of seeking for “experiments of fruit” rather than “experiments of light?” (70). Is faith such an idealistic dogma? And if so, why, then, does he purport to take part in it? These are just some of the many questions that arise for me as I read my way through Bacon’s The New Organon.
As a side note, as well, I know many of us are also in Proseminar at the moment. As such, having read Nietzsche’s “Preface” to Beyond Good and Evil, there’s a good bit of similarity between Bacon’s view of the chemists and Nietzsche’s view of astrologists. Any thoughts on this correlation? |
|
|
|
|
I think Bacon's problem with the chemists was not that they used the inductive method, but that they chose "through the premature hurry of the understanding to leap or fly to universals and principles of things" (§64). They base their conclusions on far too little data, and particularly only data from the particular scientific sub-field of chemistry. It'd be as if a given baseball team from City X had a losing season, and we went on to conclude that all sports teams from City X were lousy teams.
ReplyDelete"... there’s a good bit of similarity between Bacon’s view of the chemists and Nietzsche’s view of astrologists. Any thoughts on this correlation?"
ReplyDeleteThis is true, Mr. Haney. If you read on in Beyond Good and Evil, you will find that "the prejudices of the philosophers" are very much like (and in some cases the same as) the idols with which Bacon claims the philosophers are infected. In fact, since both of the philosophers are condemning the philosophers hitherto for their prejudices and "unreasonable reasonableness", one will find many similarities throughout the works in which they carry out this task (not to equate the goals of the two philosophers for this task).
I agree, Bacon's view of language is especially "proto-Nietzschean."
ReplyDeleteThe main obvious difference seems to be that Bacon takes the "in-itself" of nature as a brute fact while Nietzsche reduces to the will to power.
Bacon argues "knowledge is power." Foucault flips this (and also says many interesting things to say about Bacon) into "power is knowledge."
Mr. Haney, I agree that the way Bacon talks about chemists is reminiscent of Nietzsche's reference to astrologers in his infamous preface. I hesitate to make too much of a correlation for two reasons.
ReplyDelete1) Although when Nietzsche speaks of astrologers he criticizes them, his mention of them is a bit congratulatory in light of his respect for an ancient culture like Egypt. The astrologers were a necessary precondition for something great. I might not attribute this to Bacon's talk of chemists.
2) Nietzsche believes astrologers to be investigating nothing. Bacon believes chemists are distorting something, and a very important something at that.
This is an interesting thread. Another possible difference: Nietzsche seems to include modern science in his criticism of past philosophies: in the "attempt at self criticism" he describes Socrates as the proto-scientist. The common problem, if I remember correctly, is a fixation on knowledge that cripples the drive to life.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Mr. Lefavor. I am in complete agreement.
ReplyDelete