Induction
At the beginning of the Magna Instauratio and in Book II of
the New Organon, Bacon introduces his system of “true and perfect
Induction,” which he proposes as the essential foundation of scientific method
and a necessary tool for the proper interpretation of nature. (This system
was to have been more fully explained and demonstrated in Part IV of the
Instauratio in a section titled “The Ladder of the Intellect,” but
unfortunately the work never got beyond an introduction.)
According to Bacon, his system differs not only from the deductive
logic and mania for syllogisms of the Schoolmen, but also from the classic
induction of Aristotle and other logicians. As Bacon explains it, classic
induction proceeds “at once from . . . sense and particulars up to the most
general propositions” and then works backward (via deduction) to arrive at
intermediate propositions. Thus, for example, from a few observations one
might conclude (via induction) that “all new cars are shiny.” One would
then be entitled to proceed backward from this general axiom to deduce such
middle-level axioms as “all new Lexuses are shiny,” “all new Jeeps are shiny,”
etc. – axioms that presumably would not need to be verified empirically since
their truth would be logically guaranteed as long as the original generalization
(“all new cars are shiny”) is true.
As Bacon rightly points out, one problem with this procedure is that
if the general axioms prove false, all the intermediate axioms may be false
as well. All it takes is one contradictory instance (in this case one new
car with a dull finish) and “the whole edifice tumbles.” For this reason
Bacon prescribes a different path. His method is to proceed “regularly and
gradually from one axiom to another, so that the most general are not reached
till the last.” In other words, each axiom – i.e., each step up “the ladder
of intellect” – is thoroughly tested by observation and experimentation before
the next step is taken. In effect, each confirmed axiom becomes a foothold
to a higher truth, with the most general axioms representing the last stage
of the process.
Thus, in the example described, the Baconian investigator would be
obliged to examine a full inventory of new Chevrolets, Lexuses, Jeeps, etc.,
before reaching any conclusions about new cars in general. And while Bacon
admits that such a method can be laborious, he argues that it eventually
produces a stable edifice of knowledge instead of a rickety structure that
collapses with the appearance of a single disconfirming instance. (Indeed,
according to Bacon, when one follows his inductive procedure, a negative
instance actually becomes something to be welcomed rather than feared. For
instead of threatening an entire assembly, the discovery of a false generalization
actually saves the investigator the trouble of having to proceed further
in a particular direction or line of inquiry. Meanwhile the structure of
truth that he has already built remains intact.)
Is Bacon’s system, then, a sound and reliable procedure, a strong
ladder leading from carefully observed particulars to true and “inevitable”
conclusions? Although he himself firmly believed in the utility and overall
superiority of his method, many of his commentators and critics have had
doubts. For one thing, it is not clear that the Baconian procedure, taken
by itself, leads conclusively to any general propositions, much less
to scientific principles or theoretical statements that we can accept as
universally true. For at what point is the Baconian investigator willing
to make the leap from observed particulars to abstract generalizations? After
a dozen instances? A thousand? The fact is, Bacon’s method provides nothing
to guide the investigator in this determination other than sheer instinct
or professional judgment, and thus the tendency is for the investigation
of particulars – the steady observation and collection of data – to go on
continuously, and in effect endlessly.
One can thus easily imagine a scenario in which the piling up of instances
becomes not just the initial stage in a process, but the very essence of
the process itself; in effect, a zealous foraging after facts (in the New
Organon Bacon famously compares the ideal Baconian researcher to a busy
bee) becomes not only a means to knowledge, but an activity vigorously pursued
for its own sake. Every scientist and academic person knows how tempting
it is to put off the hard work of imaginative thinking in order to
continue doing some form of rote research. Every investigator knows how easy
it is to become wrapped up in data – with the unhappy result that one’s intended
ascent up the Baconian ladder gets stuck in mundane matters of fact and never
quite gets off the ground.
It was no doubt considerations like these that prompted the English
physician (and neo-Aristotelian) William Harvey, of circulation-of-the-blood
fame, to quip that Bacon wrote of natural philosophy “like a Lord Chancellor”
– indeed like a politician or legislator rather than a practitioner. The
assessment is just to the extent that Bacon in the New Organon does
indeed prescribe a new and extremely rigid procedure for the investigation
of nature rather than describe the more or less instinctive and improvisational
– and by no means exclusively empirical – method that Kepler, Galileo, Harvey
himself, and other working scientists were actually employing. In fact, other
than Tycho Brahe, the Danish astronomer who, overseeing a team of assistants,
faithfully observed and then painstakingly recorded entire volumes of astronomical
data in tidy, systematically arranged tables, it is doubtful that there is
another major figure in the history of science who can be legitimately termed
an authentic, true-blooded Baconian. (Darwin, it is true, claimed that The
Origin of Species was based on “Baconian principles.” However, it is
one thing to collect instances in order to compare species and show a relationship
among them; it is quite another to theorize a mechanism, namely evolution
by mutation and natural selection, that elegantly and powerfully explains
their entire history and variety.)
Science, that is to say, does not, and has probably never advanced
according to the strict, gradual, ever-plodding method of Baconian observation
and induction. It proceeds instead by unpredictable – and often intuitive
and even (though Bacon would cringe at the word) imaginative – leaps
and bounds. Kepler used Tycho’s scrupulously gathered data to support his
own heart-felt and even occult belief that the movements of celestial bodies
are regular and symmetrical, composing a true harmony of the spheres. Galileo
tossed unequal weights from the Leaning Tower as a mere public demonstration
of the fact (contrary to Aristotle) that they would fall at the same rate.
He had long before satisfied himself that this would happen via the very
un-Bacon-like method of mathematical reasoning and deductive thought-experiment.
Harvey, by a similar process of quantitative analysis and deductive logic,
knew that the blood must circulate, and it was only to provide proof
of this fact that he set himself the secondary task of amassing empirical
evidence and establishing the actual method by which it did so.
One could enumerate – in true Baconian fashion – a host of further
instances. But the point is already made: advances in scientific knowledge
have not been achieved for the most part via Baconian induction (which amounts
to a kind of systematic and exhaustive survey of nature supposedly leading
to ultimate insights) but rather by shrewd hints and guesses – in a word
by hypotheses – that are then either corroborated or (in Karl Popper’s
important term) falsified by subsequent research.
In summary, then, it can be said that Bacon underestimated the role
of imagination and hypothesis (and overestimated the value of minute observation
and bee-like data collection) in the production of new scientific knowledge.
And in this respect it is true that he wrote of science like a Lord Chancellor,
regally proclaiming the benefits of his own new and supposedly foolproof
technique instead of recognizing and adapting procedures that had already
been tested and approved. On the other hand, it must be added that Bacon
did not present himself (or his method) as the final authority on the investigation
of nature or, for that matter, on any other topic or issue relating to the
advance of knowledge. By his own admission, he was but the Buccinator,
or “trumpeter,” of such a revolutionary advance – not the founder or builder
of a vast new system, but only the herald or announcing messenger of a new
world to come.
Reputation and Cultural Legacy
If anyone deserves the title “universal genius” or “Renaissance man”
(accolades traditionally reserved for those who make significant, original
contributions to more than one professional discipline or area of learning),
Bacon clearly merits the designation. Like Leonardo and Goethe, he produced
important work in both the arts and sciences. Like Cicero, Marcus Aurelius,
Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, he combined wide and ample intellectual
and literary interests (from practical rhetoric and the study of nature to
moral philosophy and educational reform) with a substantial political career.
Like his near contemporary Machiavelli, he excelled in a variety of literary
genres – from learned treatises to light entertainments – though, also like
the great Florentine writer, he thought of himself mainly as a political
statesman and practical visionary: a man whose primary goal was less to obtain
literary laurels for himself than to mold the agendas and guide the policy
decisions of powerful nobles and heads of state.
In our own era Bacon would be acclaimed as a “public intellectual,”
though his personal record of service and authorship would certainly dwarf
the achievements of most academic and political leaders today. Like nearly
all public figures, he was controversial. His chaplain and first biographer
William Rawley declared him “the glory of his age and nation” and portrayed
him as an angel of enlightenment and social vision. His admirers in the Royal
Society (an organization that traced its own inspiration and lineage to the
Lord Chancellor’s writings) viewed him as nothing less than the daring originator
of a new intellectual era. The poet Abraham Cowley called him a “Moses” and
portrayed him as an exalted leader who virtually all by himself had set learning
on a bold, firm, and entirely new path:
Bacon at last, a mighty Man, arose
Whom a wise King and Nature chose
Lord Chancellour of both their Lawes. . . .
The barren Wilderness he past,
Did on the very Border stand
Of the great promis’d Land,
And from the Mountains Top of his Exalted Wit,
Saw it himself and shew’d us it. . . .
Similarly adulatory if more prosaic assessments were offered by learned
contemporaries or near contemporaries from Descartes and Gassendi to Robert
Hooke and Robert Boyle. Leibniz was particularly generous and observed that,
compared to Bacon’s philosophical range and lofty vision, even a great genius
like Descartes “creeps on the ground.” On the other hand, Spinoza, another
close contemporary, dismissed Bacon’s work (especially his inductive theories)
completely and in effect denied that the supposedly grand philosophical revolution
decreed by Bacon, and welcomed by his partisans, had ever occurred.
The response of the later Enlightenment was similarly divided, with
a majority of thinkers lavishly praising Bacon while a dissenting minority
castigated or even ridiculed him. The French encyclopedists Jean d’Alembert
and Denis Diderot sounded the keynote of this 18th-century re-assessment,
essentially hailing Bacon as a founding father of the modern era and emblazoning
his name on the front page of the Encyclopedia. In a similar gesture,
Kant dedicated his Critique of Pure Reason to Bacon and likewise saluted
him as an early architect of modernity. Hegel, on the other hand, took a
dimmer view. In his “Lectures on the History of Philosophy” he congratulated
Bacon on his worldly sophistication and shrewdness of mind, but ultimately
judged him to be a person of depraved character and a mere “coiner of mottoes.”
In his view, the Lord Chancellor was a decidedly low-minded (read typically
English and utilitarian) philosopher whose instruction was fit mainly for
“civil servants and shopkeepers.”
Probably the fullest and most perceptive Enlightenment account of
Bacon’s achievement and place in history was Voltaire’s laudatory essay in
his Letters on the English. After referring to Bacon as the father
of experimental philosophy, he went on to assess his literary merits, judging
him to be an elegant, instructive, and witty writer, though too much given
to “fustian.”
Bacon’s reputation and legacy remain controversial even today. While
no historian of science or philosophy doubts his immense importance both
as a proselytizer on behalf of the empirical method and as an advocate of
sweeping intellectual reform, opinion varies widely as to the actual social
value and moral significance of the ideas that he represented and effectively
bequeathed to us. The issue basically comes down to one’s estimate of or
sympathy for the entire Enlightenment/Utilitarian project. Those who for
the most part share Bacon’s view that nature exists mainly for human use
and benefit, and who furthermore endorse his opinion that scientific inquiry
should aim first and foremost at the amelioration of the human condition
and the “relief of man’s estate,” generally applaud him as a great social
visionary. On the other hand, those who view nature as an entity in its own
right, a higher-order estate of which the human community is only a part,
tend to perceive him as a kind of arch-villain – the evil originator of the
idea of science as the instrument of global imperialism and technological
conquest.
On the one side, then, we have figures like the anthropologist and
science writer Loren Eiseley, who portrays Bacon (whom he calls “the man
who saw through time”) as a kind of Promethean culture hero. He praises Bacon
as the great inventor of the idea of science as both a communal enterprise
and a practical discipline in the service of humanity. On the other side,
we have writers, from Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Lewis Mumford to,
more recently, Jeremy Rifkin and eco-feminist Carolyn Merchant, who have
represented him as one of the main culprits behind what they perceive as
western science’s continuing legacy of alienation, exploitation, and ecological
oppression.
Clearly somewhere in between this ardent Baconolotry on the one hand
and strident demonization of Bacon on the other lies the real Lord Chancellor:
a Colossus with feet of clay. He was by no means a great system-builder (indeed
his Magna Instauratio turned out to be less of a “grand edifice” than
a magnificent heap) but rather, as he more modestly portrayed himself, a
great spokesman for the reform of learning and a champion of modern science.
In the end we can say that he was one of the giant figures of intellectual
history – and as brilliant, and flawed, a philosopher as he was a statesman.
Aristotle.