The Myth about Bacon and the Inductive Method

Author(s): Morris R. Cohen

Source: The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 23, No. 6 (Dec., 1926), pp. 504-508
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/7669 .
Accessed: 01/05/2014 23:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Scientific Monthly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.21 on Thu, 1 May 2014 23:01:05 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE MYTH ABOUT BACON AND THE
INDUCTIVE METHOD
By Professor MORRIS R. COHEN
THE COLLEGE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

THE popular beliefthatFrancis Bacon certainly must have known something

was the founderof modernscience is so of the epoch-makingscientificwork of
flagrantlyin contradictionwith all the Harvey, whom he knew personally.
facts of the history of science and so Does this not make it appear that
patently belied by the contents of Bacon's exaggerated claims to original-
Bacon's "Sylva Sylvarum" or the sec- ity as to scientificmethodwas the cour-
ond bookof his " NovumOrganum" that tier's desire to gain prestigein the eyes
it is mostinstructiveto inquire how such of King James? Certainlyhis treatment
an absurd belief ever gained currency of Gilbert's unpublishedwritingswhich
among educated people. Unfortunately, were entrustedto him did not show any
however,the historyof science previous disinteresteddesire for the spread of
to the seventeenthcenturyis practically truth.
a closed book to those without both a (2) But whatever we may think of
classical and a scientifictraining. Even the fact and the motives for Bacon's
professional historians like Professor ignoringthe scientificwork of his own
Robinson in his "Mind in the Making" and previoustime,thereis the still more
seem to confirmthe conventionalfable significantfact that he positively op-
that therewas no science beforethe sev- posed the great constructivescientific
enteenth century. Some indications, achievementsof his day-the achieve-
therefore,of the actual situation must ments on which subsequent scientific
be set down at the beginning. progress has in fact been based.
(1) No one can well dispute the fact (a) He opposed, for instance, the
that the great body of modern science Copernican astronomy which had re-
rests on foundationsalready laid before ceived notable confirmationin his day
the appearance of the "Novum Or- through the scientificwork of Kepler
ganum" in 1620. One needs only to and Galileo. This fact is so glaring that
mentionthe work of men like Coperni- many of Bacon's admirershave resorted
cus, Kepler, Galileo, Stevinus and Gil- to strange arguments to minimize it.
bert in physics,or of Vesalius and Har- They have attemptedto do so eitherby
vey in biology-omitting,for simplicity softeningthe statementof the fact or
of argument,the great mathematicians by tryingto findsome justificationfor
fromArchimedesto Tartaglio and Car- Bacon's position. Neitherof theseargu-
danus. As all these men had long lines ments,however,is in the least tenable.
of predecessorsas well as fellow-workers, Despite the beclouding efforts of
Bacon's repeated claim that there was Whewell and others,Bacon's opposition
altogether no well-established science to the Copernican astronomywas em-
based on experience before he came on phaticallyexplicit. In his "De Augmen.
the scene would in any other man be Scient.,"1 he speaks of "the extravagant
characterized as the claim of a crank idea of diurnal motionof the earth, an
or charlatan. Ignorance on Bacon 's Afinion which wA can dePmonstvrate to be
part is too generousan excuse. For he 1 Book III, Ch. 4.
504

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.21 on Thu, 1 May 2014 23:01:05 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE MYTH ABOUT BACON 505
most false." This he repeatsin the The only two claimsin this respect
"NovumOrganum. 2X2 that I have ever seen are that Bacon
Thosewhotryto save theprestigeof anticipatedNewton'sdiscovery ofgravi-
Bacon by claimingthat in his day the tationand thathe discovered heatto be
evidencefor the Copernicanastronomy a formof motion. Neitherof these
was inadequate,imply that Bacon's claimsis true.
sense of evidencewas superiorto that The firstclaim is made by Voltaire
ofKepler,Galileoand Gilbert.But this in thefamousessaywhichdid morethan
can not for a momentbe toleratedby anything else to establishBacon's great
any one familiarwiththemathematicalEuropean reputation. But the claim
workof Kepler,with Galileo's demon- thatBacon anticipatedNewton'slaw of
strationof the phases of Venus and gravitation is absurdon the face of it,
especiallywiththeveryflimsy character sincethe Newtoniantheoryis based on
of theevidencewhichBaconhimselfad- theCopernicanastronomy, whichBacon
duced forthe olderview. His boasted rejected. Moreover, Voltaire,like other
proofconsistedof nothingelse but the admirers ofBacon,doesnotseemto have
naiverepetition of theAristotelian doc- read Baconwithcare or noticedhis dis-
trinethat"the eternalmotionofrevolu- tinct assertionthat bodies lose weight
tion appears peculiarto the heavenly belowthe surfaceof the earth.7 New-
bodies,restto thisglobe."3 ton could certainlynot have been in-
(b) Bacon also opposedthe growing fluencedby such nonsense. Bacon's
and fruitful methodofexplaining physi- knowledge thatthespeedoffallingbod-
cal phenomena as faras possiblein terms ies increasesas theyapproachtheearth
of mechanics. This method,begunby -which Voltaireconfuseswiththe law
theancientGreeksand developedby the ofgravitation-wasan old commonplace
Italians in the latterpart of the six- in no way discoveredby Bacon, whose
teenthcentury, did notappealto Bacon, viewswentno deeperthanthe observa-
who believedin species spiritualisas the tion that somebodiesare heavy,some
explanationof soundand thatthe "hu- light,and someneither.8
man understanding is pervertedby ob- The secondclaim,thatBacon antici-
servingthepowerof mechanicalarts."4 pated the moderndoctrineof heat as a
Despite a few grudginglyapproving formof motion,is likewiseuntenable.
words,Gilbert'sgenuinely experimentalFor Bacon rejectedthe atomictheory
philosophy is rejectedin principle.His ("Novum Organum,"II, 8), and his
experiments withmagnets5 are called a methodof inductionled him to infer
wasteof time,and his fundamental dis- that the motionwhich producesheat
coveriesin electricityand magnetism "should take place not in the verymi-
whichhave provedbasic are character- nutestparticlesbut ratherin thoseof
izedas fables.6 sometolerabledimensions.'"'
(3) Not only did Bacon ignore or How farBaconhimself was frommak-
opposewhat was sound in the science ing anyfruitful contributionsto science
of his day, but he himself,despiteall is amplyillustrated by the observations
his grandiloquent claims,failedto make and conclusions on almosteverypage of
a single importantcontributionto his "Sylva Sylvanum"and otherpre-
science. tendedscientificworks. A fewexamples
2Bk. I., Ch. 46; of. Glob. Int., Ch. 6.
from themore widely read "NovumOr-
8 "Novum Organum," II, 35; of. II, 36. ganum"maybe cited:Refusing to grant
41bid., I, 66. 7 Ibid., I, 33.
5 Ibid., I, 70. 8 Top. Part Sc. Ob. 3.
I Ibid., II, 48. 9 "Novum Organum," II, 20.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.21 on Thu, 1 May 2014 23:01:05 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
506 THE SCIENTIFIC MONTHLY
thatfirecan everseparatethe elements Society,paid great tributeto Bacon.
ofa compound, he recommends thestudy But none of theirreallyscientific con-
of the spiritin everybody,"whether tributions was determinedby theBacon-
thatspiritis copiousand exuberant, or ian method.It was ratherthemethods
meagerand scarce,fineor coarse,aeri- whichBacon rejected,the methodsof
formor igniform, etc."10 Or consider Kepler, Galileo and Gilbert,that they
the queer jumble of unrelatedphe- followed in their successfulefforts.
nomenain his tables of instanceson Also,the idea of a societyforthe pro-
whichan inductionas to heat is to be motion of natural and experimental
based, containingthe followinggems: knowledge was developedbytheItalians
Confinedair is particularlywarm in (e.g.,theLinceanSociety,ofwhichGali-
winter,and "the irritation of surround- leo was a member)longbeforeBacon.
ing cold increasesheat as may be seen We need not ignorethe fact thatin
in firesduring a sharp frost." All thefirstbookofthe"NovumOrganum"
shaggysubstancesare warm,and so are and moreespeciallyin his doctrineof
spiritsofwine. Boilingwatersurpasses the idols, Bacon has given us a most
in heat someflames,etc. I am notun- vivid, stirringand still applicableac-
awarethatwithdue diligencesomewhat countof theperennialdifficulties in the
similarabsurditiesmay be culledfrom scientific studyof nature. But his un-
the pages of Gilbert,Kepler, Galileo, usually eloquentappeal for the study
Boyle and even later writersin the of factsas opposedto idle speculation
Transactions of theRoyalSociety. But was neithernew nor in factveryeffec-
thesemenhave positiveachievement in tivein theactualdevelopment ofscience.
scienceto theircredit. Bacon has none. In the centurybeforeBacon the Span-
Nor could he verywell have made any iardViveshad madethesamecriticisms,
scientific discoveriesso long as he be- the same exhortations and almostthe
lievedin explainingthingsby "spirits" same grandioseplans. Indeed,we find
and relyingon "axioms" whereby "gold thesameappeal forthedirectstudyof
or any metalor stoneis generatedfrom naturecontinually urgedas farbackas
the originalmenstruum.'11 the twelfthcenturyby the scholastic
(4) Others have urged that while Adelardof Bath. But it is all rather
Bacon did not himselfmakeany direct futile. Science flourishes not on good
contribution to science,he foundedthe intentionsproducedby pious exhorta-
truemethodofscience,themethodofin- tions,but on the suggestion of definite
duction. Thereis, however, nota single directions work-
of inquiryand definite
authenticatedrecordof any one ever able methods, and theseBacon entirely
making any importantdiscoveryin failedto produce.
sciencebyfollowing Bacon'smethodand Bacon's failureis mostinstructivebe-
its mechanicaltables and twenty-sevencause it showsthe illusorycharacterof
prerogative instances.It would,indeed, theidea of inductionwhichhe and Mill
be mostamazingif themanwhoignored afterhimmadepopular. Accordingto
or rejectedwhat was soundestin the thisviewthescientist beginswithoutany
scienceofhis day,and put downas fact regardforpreviousthought.Resolved
or conclusionso many absurditiesas notto anticipatenature,he letsthefacts
Bacon did,shouldbecometheoriginator recordtheirowntale. All thisis purely
or trueexpounder method. Utopian. The facts of naturedo not
ofscientific
It is true that some scientists,e.g., streamin on us withall theirrelevant
Boyle and otherfoundersof the Royal characteristics dulymarked. The num-
10 Ibid., II, 7. berofpossiblecircumstances thatcan be
11 Ibid., II. 5. noted about any object is indefinitely

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.21 on Thu, 1 May 2014 23:01:05 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE MYTH ABOUT BACON 507
large. Scientific progressdependsupon science. Thus his classification of the
considering onlythe circumstances that typesof motiondisplaygreatingenuity.
turnout to be relevantto the pointof But all suchconceptsas the"motionof
ourinquiry. But whatwe considerrele- liberty,"in whichbodies"strive with
vant,e.g.,in theinquiryas to thecause all theirpowerto reboundand resume
ofcancer,dependsuponpreviousknowl- theirformerdensity,"lack the direct
edge. Hence scientificdiscoveriesare relevancewhichwe findin the ideas of
not made by thosewho beginwith an the sixteenth-century Italian predeces-
unbiasedmindin the formof a tubula sorsofGalileo,likeBenedetti.Compare
rasa, but by those who have derived similarly Bacon's vague statements
fruitful ideasfromthestudyofprevious aboutcolorsas "solitary" instancesor
science. In theabsenceofcarefully con- whitecoloras a "migratory"instance
sideredmethodsof observation thatde- withthe observations of Kepler's "Di-
penduponpreviousknowledge " orevenwiththeobservations
and criti- optrics on
cal reflection, the observationof nature therainbowin Vitello's Opticspublished
herselfis sterile. Thosewhothinkthey in 1270. The utterfutilityof the un-
can startany naturalinquirywithout trainedamateurin scienceis bornein on
" anticipating nature" ormakinganyas- us whenwe compareBacon's ideas on
sumptionsat all are just complacentlythemotionof thepulse,or his explana-
ignorant.In any case,any onewhobe- tion of sex organs"7with the contem-
gins,in theBaconianfashion, to observe poraryworkofHarvey.
naturede novo is boundto findmany No wonderthat a real scientistlike
"facts" whichare notso. Thus Bacon Harvey was movedto say that Bacon
himselfobservesthat cold diminishes wrotesciencelike a lordchancellor.
afterpassinga certainaltitude,12 that How, then,in the lightof the fore-
air is transformed intowater,13thatclear goingreadilyverifiable facts,are we to
nightsare coolerthancloudyones,"that explainthe tremendous extentand per-
waterin wellsis warmerin winterthan sistenceof the traditionthat looks to
in summer,'5 and thatthe moondraws Baconas thefounderofmodernscience?
forth heat, induces putrefaction, in- The firstpointto noteis thatBacon
creasesmoisture and excitesthemotions is still eminentlyreadable,while the
of spirits.16 Of coursemanyof theab- scientific worksof Kepler,Galileo,Gil-
surd observations thatcrowdthe pages bertand Harvey,not to mentiontheir
of Baconweremadeforhimby someof predecessors, are inaccessible
to thegen-
his assistants, liketheReverendRawley, eral reader. The changefromLatin to
or takenfrompopularmanualsof his the vernacularas the languageof the
day. But theyare in any case typical learned,together withtherapidgrowth
of whatuntrainedobservers can and do of new technicalmethodssince the
record. No readerof Bacon can ques- eighteenth century,has madeit difficult
tion his genius or the fertilityof his for scientiststhemselvesto read the
mind;but a comparison of his ideas on worksof theirpredecessors of the six-
sciencewiththeworksofpreviousscien- teenthor previouscenturies.But Bacon
tists upon whomhe heaped rhetorical can be read by everybody.His pithy
scorn shows the utter irrelevanceof sayingsare sententious and quotablelike
Bacon's ideas to the actual progressof Cicero's. The generalreaderis carried
12 Ibid., II, 27.
away by the splendid rhetoricwith
13"i Sylva Sylvanum," 27. which Bacon denouncesas useless all
14 Ibid., 326.
15 Ibid., 885. previousworkin science;and his errors
186Ibid., 889. 17 "1NovumOrganum,
" I, 27.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.21 on Thu, 1 May 2014 23:01:05 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
508 THE MYTH ABOUT BACON

of factor irrelevanceof ideas are either eryofeverything else,"'18or "a synopsis

not recognizedas such or else covered of all thenaturesthatexistin the uni-
by the verybroad but unhistorical re- verse."19 That which makes utopias
flectionthattheyweregoodenoughfor springup perennially is foundinBacon's
Bacon's times. idea that if his system could be estab-
The mainsource,however, of theBa- lished "the invention of all causes and
conianmythis thegreatromantic sciences would be the labor of buta few
appeal years."20 Especiallyin an age thatbe-
whichinheresin the fundamental idea lieves in democracyand mechanical
of organizingscienceon a newbasiscall- progressit is pleasantto be told that
ing forno specialaptitudeor technical scienceexists for materialenrichment
training. Technicalscienceinvolvesan and thateverything can be achievedby
arduousroutinewhichcan notbe popu- rulesleavinglittleto superiorwits.21 It
lar withtheuninitiated.The multitude requirespainfulefforts to disabuseour-
(includingscientistsaway fromtheir selves of such n1pAJintilllsion.
special domain) will alwaysdelightin 18 Ibid., I, 129.
any plan fora new deal in science-''a 19 Ibid., II, 21.
112.
whichwill lead to thediscov- 21 Ibid., Iy 111
20
discovery and 122.
Ibid.) II I,

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.21 on Thu, 1 May 2014 23:01:05 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions