Talk:Novum Organum

Instauratio Magna
This, as the most important philosophical work of Francis Bacon, the corpus of which includes this, deserves its own entry, even though or even more so as Novum Organum has one. I'd be willing to do a stub on which others could and should expand. Anyone interested? Maybe write on my talk page, then. Gwyndon 19:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Baconian method
I suggest we merge this article with Baconian method. It seems like the method article will be incomplete without a full discussion of the contents of the Novum Organum, and if that is the case, it might just as well be the Novum Organum article. --Chris 00:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * probably a good idea--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go ahead and merge these. Need something to do today and the page just poppe up on the cleanup page for the skepticism project. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See discussion (now re-started) on the other talk page, which is where the most recent discussion was (back in 2011).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Awkward passage
The following passage is confusing:

Bacon's emphasis on the use of artificial experiments to provide additional observances of a phenomenon can often support the conclusion that Bacon's process and the scientific method are one, but Bacon himself should not be considered "the Father of the Experimental Philosophy."

In the first part, "can often support" is awkward. The subject of the sentence either does or doesn't lead people to the conclusion mentioned. Which is it? Who and how many?

The second part of it appears to violate WP:NPOV. The problem phrase is "should not be considered". Wikipedia articles should not take sides.

How should this be reworded? The Transhumanist 20:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose we should first ask what it is about the passage we want to keep, and on what grounds--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at book-selling websites, it seems the text is actually simply taken from the blurb of the named book. Obviously we can not just use a blurb. Also, in context it seems that this one book is disputing a widely held belief, so we can not simply have Wikipedia agree with this one book only.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment on a merger proprosal

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There was a tag on this page and Baconian method to merge this one into that one place in August 2018. I saw an old discussion with no real comment but saw the tag was recent so I went and did it. Hasty sure but bold and it seemed obvious to me that it should be done as the Baconian method is not so much a topic unto itself as one of many things covered in Novum Organum. My work was revert due to no discussion or consensus despite the similarity of the topic. The reverting editor had good point though, Novum Organum ought to be the page that remains if a merger is to occur. So I figured flipping the merger proposal and tagging an RfC would be a good way to drum up some conversation.

Obviously I support a merger since I went ahead and did the work, which can be seen here. Although I definitely didn't finish. Also, the new merge would clearly be different then what I did given they would be going together in the opposite direction. I contend that it's basically the same content but on the Baconian method page there is less of it and also some irrelevant stuff.

What do we think would work? I consensus is leave the separate I'll work on a separate improvement of Baconian method or just move on to another project but I'd like to merge them. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This isn't something I know anything about, so to attempt a logical approach: if (what became known as) the Baconium method was only explained by Bacon in Novum Organum, then merge so that Novum Organum is the remaining page. If Bacon supported his method in other publications, then keep them separate. DferDaisy (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There's been so much discussion of this that I can only express my feeling (not rigorously substantiated by induction) that if there are significant elements in Bacon's method that are not covered in Novum Organum then you did well initiating a merging of the two. Wouldn't it be mainly academics these days who would be familiar with Novum Organum, while a much larger audience would be interested in Bacon and his method in general, and through that come to know of Novum Organum? Jzsj (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No I don't think so. Novum Organum is still a very famous book because of the argument for being methodical and avoiding metaphysics. It is seen as a starting point for modern science and the enlightenment. Baconian method on the other hand, the way I understand the intention of that article, probably relates to a very specific method which I think was never much used by real scientists.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I notice that Encyclopedia Britannica currently has a page on the Baconian method but not on Novum Organum. So I suggest we should keep both. What you say of the importance of Novum Organum today is borne out by the pages of listings for it in Google search and the comments on the book at Amazon. Keep both articles. Baconian method also has several pages at Google search. For someone interested in the chief insights in Novum, they can be found well capsulized at Google. (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I'm more in favor of an article on the book being separate from an article on the method. Similar to how Principia Mathematica (Newton) is separate from Newton's laws of motion.  They just feel like two different topics to me.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Markbassett and Jzsj. There are two topics, closely related, but still two topics, and with no logical requirement to read both every time you read either. Linking them clearly and conveniently for the reader will be altogether functional for anyone researching both, and will be more useful for readers who are seeking details on one only. A brief paragraph in the Bacon article, with "See main article" should be completely satisfactory for the modal reader, and make for a more manageable article for everyone. JonRichfield (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge to avoid wp:UNDUE weight of method text. The other article, "Baconian method" should remain separate to avoid wp:UNDUE details merged or added into page "Novum Organum" because the Baconian method had been used for over 200 years, and more explanation or examples could be added to the method page, re inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning, as with comparing logical if-then connections against mathematical models, such as comparing movement of a light source to become quickly dimmer, versus a math formula where brightness dims as the square of distance away. Separate pages are needed to explain hundreds of years regarding the 1620 Baconian method against other methods. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge Clearly distinct notable subjects with reasonably non-stubby articles. I see no real arguments about the advantage of merging. The proper approach in such cases, to avoid both duplication and missed coverage is Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge Same reasoning as above arguments; mostly since neither of these pages are stubs and do not have identical content. Myoglobin (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge The Novum Organum page is clearly not a stub and I'm sure it can be further improved. Also, as per and . Robertgombos (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge as per  Cl ea n Co py talk 08:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the tags on this. Pretty clear that the consensus is to not go ahead with this. Thanks for the input. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.