Talk:Francis Bacon/Archive 5

Categories
With a category dedicated to Francis Bacon himself, shouldn't all (or most of) the categories listed under the article actually go under his category instead (in other words, be the categories the Francis Bacon category comes under, thereby obviating the need to include them at the Francis Bacon page itself)? Artaxerxes (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Arbitrary policies"
The current article refers offhandedly to the 'arbitrary policies' of James I. I'm puzzled by this. I was under the impression that he was, if anything, an unusually intellectual king, and not given to insufficient reflection. I'd remove the 'arbitrary', but perhaps someone with more knowledge of James I (or simply of what was intended by the phrase here) might chime in. I suspect that what was intended may have been simply something to the effect that Bacon supported whatever policy James I happened to advocate, irrespective of what it was (the quasi-mathematical sense of the word, which isn't familiar to most people and not the one associated with governance). MJM74 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that the poster was refering to Stuart absolutism or also known as arbitary rule. The reign of James I and Charles I was charactertized by a very hostile relationship between the crown and Parilament. (Charles I actually didn't call a Parliamnet from 1629 to 1640, known as the era of "Personal Rule.") The stage was set early on in James' reign when Parliament refused to pass the his Act of Unificaiton. Also, consider the state of Scottish politics that James had to endure since he was a child. The Scottish crown never had that much control over the lords; Mary Queen of Scotts was placed on trial and fled to England leaving her son James behind to be raised in a very hostile polticial environment. (Look up George Buchanan) Anyway, "arbitrary rule" refers to how the Stuart Monarchs ruled without reference to Parliament. (Look up Charles I and Ship Money Tax.) So "arbitrary" probably should be placed back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.230.6 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Industrial Revolution…in the two centuries following 1800…"
Can anyone help out this puzzled reader as to the relevance of this recent restoration, please? It's an unwanted (AFAICS) copy-paste from the lede of Industrial Revolution--217.155.32.221 (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what your question is. If you wondering the relevance of the passage that gives a cursory overview of the Industrial Revolution, then my response would be that it is really superfluous to the entry. Granted Bacon is cited a foundational thinker for the Industrial Revolution; however, however a hyperlink to the entry on "The Industrial Revolution" would seem more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atownnative (talk • contribs) 02:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Bacon and the Environment
I am thinking about adding a section to this article covering Bacon in light of the modern environmental movement. Following the 2010 Gulf oil spill, his name kept popping up as the turning point in western thought when humanity began to perceive the environment to be exploited for material benefit. I know that this view of Bacon is highly controversial among scholars, i.e. Carolyn Merchant, Perez Zagorin, and Nieves Matthews, to just name a few. I think it might be a good idea to contextualize Bacon's claim that humanity could subjugate Nature within two competing historigraphies: one that saw the natural world as having been irreparably corrupted by the Fall and the other, associated with Bacon, that humanity, through empirical investigation and manipulation of Nature, could re-establish an Edenic harmony, or Adamic dominance, once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.102.25 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Francis Bacon and the Voynich Manuscript
Noting that a connection has been made -. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Great Instauration miquoted
The phrase "'spring of a progeny of inventions, which shall overcome, to some extent, and subdue our needs and miseries'" is given as a quote from The Great Instauration. It is a reasonable paraphrasing of a statement from that text:

"The explanation of which things, and of the true relation between the nature of things and the nature of the mind, is as the strewing and decoration of the bridal chamber of the mind and the universe, the divine goodness assisting, out of which marriage let us hope (and be this the prayer of the bridal song) there may spring helps to man, and a line and race of inventions that may in some degree subdue and overcome the necessities and miseries of humanity."

The quotes should be removed, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Storage (talk • contribs) 04:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Date error
this part "In 1683, in letter addressed to King James I ..." must have the wrong year, because by 1683 both Bacon and King James were long dead. Loren Rosen (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a squib written in honor of St. Bacon. Just saying....
Bacon had three goals: to uncover truth, to serve his country, and to serve his church.

In my experience the biographies get more interesting if we strive for a higher standard of objectivity. This is for anyone who sees my point and wants to offer some better language. Keep the peace--BenJonson (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not see your point. Those may very well have been his goals, and they do not seem to be unreasonable goals to me. I do think there needs to be a source for his goals though, because if that were his goals, then he would have had to say so for us to know. Or at least there would have to be some other intelligible reason for writing that, since we should not just attribute goals to people in Wikipedia articles without having a reason to do so. --Elwood1992 (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox philosopher
Note to editors: please do not delete the Infobox philosopher template. The parameters of this template are vital to the purposes of WikiProject Philosophy. If you want to add an Infobox officeholder, please do it as is done in the article about Joseph Stiglitz were both an Infobox economist and an Infobox officeholder are featured. Thanks. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Religion?
Might I mention that no where in the article is it mentioned what religion Bacon believed in, if he did at all. I had to look through his works to get to the idea that he might be Christian. If any one knows the answer, please add it to the table or the article, if possible. -- Orduin  ⋠ T ⋡ 17:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Scientific method?
The page states Francis Bacon has been attribute with being the creator of empiricism and practitioner of the Scientific Method sometimes called the Baconian Method. This suggests to me that Bacon is attributed with being the founder, or one of the founders, of scientific method. I notice that the page on Scientific Method (the?) includes only a few reference to Francis Bacon and describes him as a follower of the scientific method and creator of 'a new system of logic'. The impression I get is that Bacon was by no means one of the founders of scientific method but rather an influential advocate of the method which was a base for his development of another or other scientific theories. Is this correct? If yes it needs to be made clearer because at the moment the two pages are at odds with one another.

It is hard to say. Bacon was the really the first to formulate the notion of an empirical study of nature that would be devoted to ameliorating the material existence of humanity. (Although the notion that knowledge should be directed to our physical well-being was circulating throughout Renaissance Europe. Bacon cites alchemists, such as Roger Bacon and Paracelsus, as informing his thinking.) By no means was Bacon the first to suggest basing knowledge on empirical data. Consider that Copernicus had written Of the Revolution of Celestial Spheres in 1543, in which he challenged geocentric cosmology based on his observations. (Bacon actually rejected Copernicus' heliocentric universe.)While he never really was much of a scientist, Bacon was a propagandist for the "new science." I guess the reason why he has garnered the title of founder of the Scientific Method is due to how much the Royal Society was influenced by his writings. The members based their organization on the House of Salomon that Bacon writes about in his New Atlantis. So to return to your question: it is not just that bacon was an influential advocate for the new science but was the advocate for the new science. Early scientific authors, such as Robert Boyle or Robert Hooke, cite Bacon as structuring the foundation for their thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atownnative (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but how can a man who was no scientist at all lay the foundation of modern science? Besides, we can't credit anyone as the "Father of Scientific Method" for the simple reason of "What is the Scientific Method?" There're many concepts. Futhermore, before Bacon, the experimental methodology was already largely used in many places through Europe. We should take a more measured view and avoid biased positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.215.229.88 (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you are missing a very fundamental point here about how Bacon promulgated what we now consider to be the scientific method. Yes, we can go find examples of proto-scientists throughout Europe before Bacon, such as the alchemist Paracelesus. However, what Bacon did was to theorize what these proto-scientists were doing into a philosophy. His greatest contribution to Western Scientific thought was to argue for the belief that knowledge should be used to better humanity's physical existence. (By the way, to say he was not a scientists, or at least one who did conduct experiments, is historically untrue. I would suggest reading a biography on him before making such claims.)Atownnative (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Two points: (1) The discussion confuses arguing "for the belief that knowledge should be used to better humanity's physical existence" with founding the scientific method. Having a view about the end of knowledge is very different from laying out the principles to be followed in advancing knowledge. The scientific method is a means, not an end. (2) "His works established .. the scientific method" while repeating a popular myth, is historically myopic and flatly wrong. The much maligned Aristotle was thorough empiricist in approach and urged empiricism on his followers, even insisting that aristocratic students dirty their hands with dissections. (Yes, I know that he is seen as a bastion of authoritarianism, but that view is without support in the Aristotelian corpus.) Aristotle's Posterior Analytics contains the principles of the scientific method [1]. Robert "Grosseteste did introduce to the Latin West the notion of controlled experiment and related it to demonstrative science, as one among many ways of arriving at such knowledge." ([2]) He also clearly articulated the need for parsimony and the method of hypothesizing, deducing consequences, and testing those consequences with experiments and observations, and applied it to studying the rainbow. [3]. This is the scientific method, just as we have it today. Dfpolis (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfpolis (talk • contribs)

edits by user:RyanTQuinn
hi guys,

i don't have time to keep trolling bacon's wiki page (as much as i love doing it), but as a heads up i suspect user:RyanTQuinn will try to remove jefferson's quote on bacon, locke & newton's influence on america.

i'm hoping either a discussion occur as to why it should be removed (it is not uncited, as quinn tried to claim in his edit), or why quinn has the right to lie about something that's clearly show.

does he want someone to pull historical records to verify the quote from a government repository? it seems like these letters would be in the trust of an american government entity (just as english thinkers' are held by repositories in london).

please be mindful and revert his edit (if he tries to remove it), as i feel it is deserved. america is a copycat nation. PERIOD.

further to my point, please consult link: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22bacon%2C+locke%2C+newton%22+jefferson&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 to see obvious existence of the quote by jefferson (saying bacon, locke, newton are the three all-time greats).

i really don't know where quinner gets off thinking he can edit stuff to make himself feel better about his beloved ponzi nation, aka america 96.52.168.137 (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Nieves Mathews.
Is her opinion about Bacon's homosexuality really reliable ? On her wikipedia page, it is stated that she was deeply influenced by Rajneesh who suggested and "blessed" the writing of this biography, the same man for whom "Homosexuals, because they were perverted, created the disease AIDS" and who said to "a gay sannyasin" that "as a homosexual, (he was) not even a human being". Isn't it a big bias ? […]." 90.3.250.135 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Her work is cited here for non-controversial details, or for examples of opinions in the debate about his sexuality, so I don't see this as an issue. Lot's of people, including academics, have belonged to religious groups who's leaders have disparaged homosexuality or held regressive views, but we don't automatically dismiss them for it. Even if we accepted the connection between her religion and her position on Bacon's sexuality, WP:BIASED sources are not necessarily unreliable sources. So did Rajneesh say something relevant specifically about Bacon? More importantly, did Mathews say that about Bacon, or did she cite her religious beliefs as part of her work? If so, that might be a problem, but even so it's all about context. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I thank you for you answer. I think it's a problem because on the one hand, Nieves Mathews stated herself candidly that this book was Rajneesh's idea ; the same Rajneesh who, she wrote, "thought highly of Sir Francis Bacon" and who, otherwise, was clearly homophobic. And on the other hand, the title of the book itself "Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination" suggest the aim to whitewash a priori all "unpleasant" sides (homosexuality is clearly part of these in their mind) of the character. I just think all of this isn't uninteresting, but anyway it's just an observation that had to be made -on the PD at least-, I believe. 90.3.250.135 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's worth considering. Looking at the talk page archives, it appears someone brought this up back in October 2007, but it couldn't hurt to readdress it every ten years or so. I think it would be a mistake to hold her religious life against her. Her assessment of Bacon may possibly be biased or opinionated, but that doesn't necessarily make the factual aspects false. We usually give the fact-checking of reputable academic publishers like Yale University Press the benefit of the doubt. It also sets a dangerous and unpleasant precedent to discount her through guilt by association. Frankly, I'm also cautious of her work with Velikovsky, as his theories are at the extreme edges of academia. There, also, I think dismissing her work would be an overreaction, but it's worth treating with caution. Grayfell (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed due to inappropriateness on my part. However, I thought was in a new section. If inadvertently removed anything other than my comments, my apologies.

Francis Bacon
Is he not an Irishman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.38.178 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francis Bacon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132204461800/http://www.heritage.nf.ca/law/lab4/labvol4_1701.html to http://www.heritage.nf.ca/law/lab4/labvol4_1701.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

hi, I could tell from the beginning that this sounded like a bot, but I was gonna say something until I realized it actually was a bot

Long Lasting Influence
I am puzzled by this section in the introduction: "While his own practical ideas about such a method, the Baconian method, did not have a long lasting influence, ..." The Wikipedia article on Baconian Method does not include this kind of negative statement. Does anyone have a reference for that comment? Would anyone object if I removed it from the introduction? Olorinish (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Possibly the intended point is not so clear, and should be worded better instead of removed. Bacon famously argued for the use of a skeptical method in science, and that is of course extremely influential. But the specific detailed method he gave is not really one anyone uses. (The two tables: "Table of Essence and Presence", and "Table of Deviation, or of Absence in Proximity".) I am not sure if anyone ever used these tables much. In other words his general proposal for method was very successful, but (less importantly) his specific methods were not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"The Father of the Scientific Method"
Despite the myth, Bacon is hardly the father of the scientific method. Robert Grossetesta (ca. 1168–1253), Bishop of Lincoln, had laid down the cannons of a far better experimental method, including the need for controlled experiments. This is well documented in works dealing with the history of science in the Middle Ages such as James Hannam, The Genesis of Science:How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution. It is time to end this distortion of the history of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfpolis (talk • contribs) 14:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Will Durant, Story of Philosophy, also disagrees. I think sentence should be removed. At best, it should be moved below and qualified with "though several people, have said..., historians agree today that he is not the Father..." Student7 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the above proposals would mean making Wikipedia voice a minority position. Also I think there are good reasons it is a minority position, if you look more deeply into the subject. It is an old talking point that there were many individual medieval scientists before Bacon, whose works have survived down to our time, but none of them founded modern science. Bacon was known as the father of modern science during the Enlightenment itself, when modern science really took off as a movement and was no longer isolated individuals. They would know what they were talking about when they named him as the founder of their movement, and their claims are still taken seriously. Why did they pick him out? It is surprising how few people read or write about this subject, but what is published is quite clear. The answer is that he gave the strong argument for methodologically sceptical modern science itself. When I say strong argument I mean that he also argued against the whole corpus of classical science which was held back by teleological metaphysics. Roger Bacon did not do that for example. What I fear is causing confusion among some readers is that in recent decades there are various authors who talk about "the" scientific method, which you can read about in their textbooks and university courses. Strangely, there are several of these "the methods" and none of these specific methods were known or used by people like Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, which means they were not modern scientists? What was important according to Bacon was being consistently sceptical and consistently avoiding metaphysics. You needed to follow "a" method. He proposed "a" method which no-one follows, but the most important thing is to have a method, which should not be based on metaphysical assumptions, including the teleological assumption that people are attracted to the truth. That scepticism is the method above all methods, which is behind modern science. To put it another way, Bacon dared to argue that people are attracted to lies, and can not be trusted. The only competitor to Bacon in this respect is Descartes, but he used a metaphysical argument for scepticism that did not really justify experimentation, and even in France, Bacon was seen as the father of modern experimental science. (Descartes specific methods, for example using mathematics to build better models, did have more influence than Bacon's. But in terms of philosophy of science, Descartes is seen as the founder of rationalism, versus Bacon as founder of empiricism. For example Newton clearly used ideas from both in his approach.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't really absorbed everything you've presented above. I will try to read it again. Two points: 1) the scientific method article gives a certain amount of credit to Bacon, but doesn't avoid crediting others. The two articles ought to agree. I'd rather straighten out this one first because it probably has fewer followers. 2) we may have translation problems here. Documents were often in Latin. Earlier documents in Greek. I know what I mean when I say (in English): Hypothesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. This may be trimmed down too much for some people. Trying to match other people's work to a modern (and often less verbiose) definition can present problems. But, so far, I'm not doing that. I am relying on reliable cites. Anyway, please tell me what you think of the Scientific Method article which mentions Bacon but does not name him Father Of. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at the Scientific Method article, but I expect it to be a mess, because Wikipedia is based on what is published, and publications about that subject say lots of different things depending on where the author came from. (There is not one discipline called scientific method. Scientists themselves hardly bother with the subject, so it gets debated in all kinds of other faculties like economics, psychology, philosophy, etc. Super stars like Karl Popper and all the authors publishing on a similar template have almost no impact on real science and happened after modern science was already centuries old.) On the other hand, concerning this article, let's try to make it as good as we can. Bring those reliable cites about Francis Bacon on, and let's talk about them. I think it has the potential to not be a mess because Francis Bacon is the focus. (Hence, your point 1 not very important here. This article is not meant to focus on people who did similar things.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"the" considered harmful?
grammar article "the" was removed from front of Scientific Method. "The" is used elsewhere. Not sure why not here. Student7 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe it needs to be cleaned up in other places. Can you give an example. The point is that there is a big difference between arguing for scientific method and arguing for a specific scientific method. What Bacon did most successfully was the first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Francis Bacon was a supporter of Despotism - an absolute and unlimited state.
Sir Francis Bacon was a supporter of Despotism - an absolute and unlimited state. To Bacon the King could do anything he liked and judges were just lions UNDER the throne, with neither the judges or the people able to limit the power of the government. This is the core of the dispute between Francis Bacon and Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke - with Coke believing the power of government to be limited by the basic principles of the Common Law (reflecting natural justice - natural law), and Sir Francis Bacon believing government should be unlimited, absolute. Someone could read the entire article and not know this basic core of what Sir Francis Bacon was as a political and legal thinker - the article is, therefore, a whitewash of Sir Francis Bacon.2A02:C7D:B48D:1200:D11F:514F:22DE:3155 (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a good source for this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Cestui que looks relevant - so that sources there might help.  -'' SquisherDa (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguating Roger and Francis Bacon
There are two major philosophers named Bacon who are considered central figures in the schools of empiricism and the scientific method. I suspect that many Wikipedians visit the page on Francis Bacon when they're looking for Roger Bacon and vice-versa. (This has definitely happened to me.) I'd like to add a disambiguation to the top of both pages. Any objections? (If you do object, alternative approaches would be welcome.)

(Crossposted to Roger Bacon)--Rxtreme (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Died from meat preservation experiment?
This (meat paragraphs) has to be some of Wikipedia's worst couple of paragraphs! The "contemporary" un-scientific "opinions" about his COD are unworthy of an article about someone involved in science. That he explored cold-preservation is a fine topic, but dying of "pneumonia" (which definition history is a set of moving goalposts) that can in no way be be associated with a meat preservation experiment, can in no way be be concluded by any evidence-based line of inquiry. The lead line inferring his death was due to this experiment, and the further section filled with un-science quotes should be deleted.--Tallard (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Paedophilia
In the past, it was common for homosexuality to be hidden by biographers; today it seems that paedophilia is explained away. Paederast and catamite, as well as youth, are rather indisputable terms: anyone who claims that the words had another meaning in Bacon's time, should at least provide citations. Weatherford (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree--Tallard (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It was simply of no concern, when there was no hard evidence of it, since it is slander. Gossip about successful, prominent people is rather common and more than often a twisting of the facts. The article makes the point that those words had a slightly different meaning at the time, doesn't mean that they didn't note sexual deviancy. --197.168.149.239 (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)