PREFACE. AMONG the eight subjects which were to have been handled in the remaining books of the Novum Organum (see ii. 21.), the last but one is entitled De parascevis ad inquisitionem, under which head Bacon intended (as appears by the introduction to the following treatise) to set forth the character of the Natural and Experimental History, which was to form the third part of the Instauratio. What may have been the logical connexion between these eight subjects which determined him to reserve this for the penultimate place, it seems impossible, by the help of the titles alone, to divine. But whatever the order in which he thought advisable to approach it, there can be no doubt that this Natural and Experimental History was always regarded by him as a part of his system both fundamental and indispensable. So earnestly indeed and so frequently does he insist on the importance of it, that I once believed it to be the one real novelty which distinguished his philosophy from those of his contemporaries and immediate predecessors. And even now, though Mr. Ellis's analysis of the Baconian Induction has given me much new light and considerably modified my opinion in that matter, I am still inclined to think that Bacon himself regarded it not only as a novelty, but as the novelty from which the most important results were to be expected; and however experience may have proved that his expectations were in great part vain and his scheme impracticable, I cannot help suspecting that more of it is practicable than has yet been attempted, and that the greatest results of science are still to be looked for from a further proceeding in this direction, The grounds of this opinion will be explained most conveniently in connexion with the following treatise; a treatise published by Bacon (on account of the exceeding importance of the subject) out of its proper place and incomplete; and to which I find nothing among Mr. Ellis's papers that can serve as preface. In what the distinctive peculiarity of the Baconian philosophy really consisted, is a question to which every fresh inquirer gives a fresh answer. Before I was acquainted with Mr. Ellis's, which is the latest, and formed upon the largest survey and subtlest scrutiny of the evidence, I had endeavoured to find one for myself, and had come to a conclusion which, though 'quite different from his, is not I think irreconcilable with it, but contains (as I still venture to believe) a part, though a part only, of the truth. And the question which I wish now to raise is whether, as my solution was imperfect from not taking any account of the novelty contained in the method of Induction as Bacon understood it, Mr. Ellis's be not likewise imperfect from not taking sufficient account of the novelty contained in the Natural History as Bacon intended it to be employed; and whether there be not room for a third solution more complete than either, as including both. That the philosophy which Bacon meant to announce was in some way essentially different not only from any that had been before but from any that has been since, is a position from which in both cases the inquiry sets out; and since it is one which will not perhaps be readily granted by everybody, it may be worth while to explain the considerations which led me to it; the rather because Mr. Ellis and myself, though proceeding not only independently but by entirely different roads and in pursuit of different objects- he endeavouring to penetrate the secret of Bacon's philosophy, I endeavouring to understand the objects and purposes of his life-meet nevertheless at this point in the same conclusion. The process by which I arrived at it myself, I cannot explain better than by transcribing a paper which I wrote on the subject in 1847; at which time I had not seen any part of Mr. Ellis's argument, or heard his opinion upon the question at issue. What my own opinion is now, I will state afterwards; but first I give the paper exactly as I then wrote it; the length of the extract being justified at least if there be any truth in the conclusion by the importance of the question at issue; for it bears upon the business of the present and future quite as much as on the knowledge of the past. The form in which - it is written, that of a familiar conversation between two friends, happened to be the most convenient for the business I was then about; and as I could not present the argument more clearly in any other, I leave it as it is. A. Before you go on I wish you would satisfy me on one point, upon which I have hitherto sought satisfaction in vain. What after all was it that Bacon did for philosophy? In what did the wonder and in what did the benefit consist? I know that people have all agreed to call him the Father of the Inductive Philosophy; and I know that the sciences made a great start about his time and have in some departments made great progress since. But I could never yet hear what one thing he discovered that would not have been discovered just as soon without his help. It is admitted that he was not fortunate in any of his attempts to apply his principles to practice. It is admitted that no actual scientific discovery of importance was made by him. Well, he might be the father of discovery for all that. But among all the important scientific discoveries which have been made by others since his time, is there any one that can be traced to his teaching? traced to any principles of scientific investigation originally laid down by him, and by no other man before him or contemporary with him? I know very well that he did lay down a great many just principles;-principles which must have been acted upon by every man that ever pursued the study of Nature with But what of that? It does not follow that we owe these principles to him. For I have no doubt that I myself, I that cannot tell how we know that the earth goes round, or why an apple falls or why the antipodes do not fall, I have no doubt (I say) that if I sat down to devise a course of investigation for the determination of these questions, I should discover a great many just principles which Herschel and Faraday must hereafter act upon, as they have done heretofore. Nay if I should succeed in setting them forth more exactly, concisely, impressively, and memorably, than any one has yet done, they might soon come to be called my principles. But if that were all, I should have done little or nothing for the advancement of science. I should only have been finding for some of its processes a better name. I want to know whether Bacon did anything more than this; and if so, what. In what did the principles laid down by him essentially differ from those on which (while he was thus labouring to expound them) Galileo was already acting? From all that I can hear, it seems evident that the Inductive Philosophy received its great impulse, not from the great prophet of new principles, but from the great discoverers of new facts; not from Bacon, success. but from Galileo and Kepler. And I suppose that, with regard to those very principles even, if you wanted illustrations of what is commonly called the Baconian method, you would find some of the very best among the works of Gilbert and Galileo. What was it then that Bacon did which entitles him to be called the Regenerator of Philosophy? or what was it that he dreamt he was doing which made him think the work so entirely his own, so immeasurably important, and likely to be received with such incredulity by at least one generation of mankind? B. A pertinent question; for there is no doubt that he was under that impression. "Cum argumentum hujusmodi præ manibus habeam (says he) quod tractandi imperitiâ perdere et veluti exponere NEFAS sit." He was persuaded that the argument he had in charge was of such value, that to risk the loss of it by unskilful handling would be not only a pity but an impiety. You wish to know, and the wish is reasonable, what it was. For answer I would refer you to the philosophers; only I cannot say that their answers are satisfactory to myself. The old answer was that Bacon was the first to break down the dominion of Aristotle. This is now, I think, generally given up. His opposition to Aristotle was indeed conceived in early youth, and (though he was not the first to give utterance to it) I dare say it was not the less his own, and in the proper sense of the word, original. But the real overthrower of Aristotle was the great stir throughout the intellectual world which followed the Reformation and the revival of learning. It is certain that his authority had been openly defied some years before the publication of Bacon's principal writings; and it could not in the nature of things have survived much longer. Sir John Herschel however, while he freely admits that the Aristotelian philosophy had been effectually overturned without Bacon's aid, still maintains Bacon's title to be looked upon in all future ages as the great Reformer of Philosophy; not indeed that he introduced inductive reasoning as a new and untried process, but on account of his "keen perception and his broad and spirit-stirring, almost enthusiastic, announcement of its paramount importance, as the alpha and omega of science, as the grand and only chain for linking together of physical truths, and the eventual key to every discovery and every application." A. That is all very fine; but it seems to me rather to account for his having the title than to justify his claim to it; rather to explain how he comes by his reputation than to prove that he deserves it. Try the question upon a modern case. We are now standing upon |