Novum Organum

Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher and scientist who lived from 384 to 322 BCE. As one of the most important intellectual figures in classical antiquity, he became a central figure in Western epistemological history. His areas of study incorporated a huge range, covering topics that would today come under the umbrellas of science, philosophy, history, politics, and language. He is known in particular as a foundational influence in the field of logic—specifically for the syllogism.

Aristotle’s ideas were revived in the medieval period and were central in Christian Scholasticism and medieval Islamic philosophy. Bacon’s sphere of interest was primarily European epistemology, so Novum Organum interacts with Aristotelianism through the lens of Scholasticism in particular. His presentation of Aristotle is a crucial element to his discussion of The Flawed Foundations of Existing Epistemology. Bacon’s central criticism of the Aristotelian framework involves the syllogism, but he also attacks Aristotle’s (and his followers’) attitudes more broadly. He portrays Aristotle as dogmatic and sophistic in using abstract and complex reasoning that will not admit any flaws and is overly certain of itself despite its inadequate evidential foundation. Introducing sophistry, Bacon says that “Aristotle affords the most eminent instance […] for he corrupted natural philosophy by logic” (18). Aristotle did not consider himself a sophist, though the extent of his criticism of the sophists is debated; he positioned sophistry as distinct from true philosophy, arguing that, as paid teachers, the sophists were too concerned with the presentation of their ideas and were specious and abstract in their reasoning. Bacon’s education means he would probably have known this, but he sees these very flaws in Aristotle’s own approach, saying that Aristotle is “more anxious as to definitions in teaching and the accuracy of the wording of his propositions, than the internal truth of things” (18). Bacon’s positioning of Aristotle as a sophist reflects the centrality of Aristotle in contemporary understandings of classical philosophy, as well as Bacon’s own interest in deconstructing the logical foundations of this; he is less concerned with examining the intricacies of classical philosophies themselves.

Bacon also attacks Aristotle as an individual, presenting him and his philosophy as prideful and expansionist:

Aristotelian philosophy, after destroying other systems […] by its disputatious confutations, decided upon everything, and Aristotle himself then raises up questions at will, in order to settle them; so that everything should be certain and decided (21).

This portrayal allows Bacon to explain away the success and longevity of Aristotelianism as being unrelated to its actual merits. It is a crucial not only to Bacon’s critical consideration of epistemological history but also to his Conviction in Human Progress Through the Pursuit of Knowledge. If current approaches are as flawed as he claims, he needs to present explanations for this that allow an optimistic outlook. Positioning Aristotle and his systems of study as the main cause suggests that the problem can be realistically overcome through Bacon’s suggestion of a grand innovation—his “Great Instauration.” Aristotle and subsequent disciplines inspired by him are thus of central interest to Bacon in Novum Organum.

Bacon also refers to several other ancient Greek scholars, including Plato—the figure he mentions most after Aristotle. Plato was born in the 420s BCE, dying in 348 BCE. Aristotle studied under him, and the two continued to work in contact with each other, although they had some differences of opinion and approach.

Bacon uses the figures of Plato and other ancient Greeks for different purposes at different times. Sometimes he includes them alongside Aristotle as examples of damaging attitudes. He describes, for instance, how the word sophist “might well suit the whole tribe” (23), grouping Greek scholars from different schools under this same umbrella. Plato and Pythagoras before him also serve as examples of the damaging impact of superstition on the pursuit of knowledge. They enhance Bacon’s argument about the persistent danger of superstition by showing how it spans different schools of thought and different times.

Elsewhere Bacon portrays Greek scholars more positively. He describes the successes of Greek philosophers and scientists whose methods he deems preferable to Aristotle’s, as they “exhibit some sprinkling of natural philosophy, the nature of things, and experiment” (18). This reflects Bacon’s ideas about the importance of evidence and scientific interaction with the material world. In the Preface, Bacon praises the example of “the more ancient Greeks” to show that a compromise between skepticism and dogmatism is possible (5).

Bacon also gives Plato as an example of skepticism: “The school of Plato introduced scepticism, first, as it were in joke and irony, from their dislike to Protagoras, Hippias, and others, who were ashamed of appearing not to doubt upon any subject” (21). Bacon undermines skepticism here by citing Plato as ridiculing it rather than exhorting it, due to its egotistical origins. He also cites Plato as offering a (limited) precedent for his own method: “Plato […] certainly uses this form of induction in some measure, to sift definitions and ideas” (39). Plato is thus presented in a more nuanced way than Aristotle: Bacon is critical at times but also appeals to his authority and precedent to corroborate his views.

Overall, Bacon’s references to numerous Greek scholars and philosophers serve to demonstrate his own classical education and wealth of knowledge, enhancing the legitimacy of Novum Organum.

Bacon primarily considers his recent contemporaries from a critical standpoint, in keeping with his theme of the flaws in existing epistemology. However, he also uses references to his contemporaries to support his arguments and ideas and to show that Novum Organum is an up-to-date and relevant text.

Gilbert (1544-1603) was an English scientist, philosopher, and physician. Like Bacon, he broadly rejected Aristotelian philosophy and Scholasticism as an educational framework. However, Bacon criticizes Gilbert, grouping him alongside alchemists as an example of empiricism, which he associates with a short-sighted, blinkered focus on isolated material observations divorced from their broader context: “[T]hey waste all their time on probing some solitary matter, as Gilbert on the magnet, and the alchemists on gold. But […] nobody can successfully investigate the nature of any object by considering that object alone” (22). Although Bacon urges the importance of observation and experiment, here he holds up Gilbert as an example of how not to experiment. This supports his argument that a specific tool is needed to direct human study to prevent error. Bacon also mentions Gilbert frequently throughout his “prerogative instances,” usually giving examples of errors Gilbert has made to show the importance of Bacon’s own instances, but occasionally citing his ideas as a possibility.

Bacon is more favorable in his presentation of Galileo. Galileo (1564-1642) was an Italian polymath with a particular interest in astronomy and physics. Bacon does not put him on a pedestal, disagreeing with one of his theories in Aphorism 46, Book 2, which fits with Bacon’s arguments against uncritical acquiescence to any person or school solely because of their reputation. He does, however, use Galileo as a positive example. When explaining the “prerogative instance” of tools that extend the human senses, he describes “the telescope, discovered by the wonderful exertions of Galileo” (102). This example illustrates how this particular “instance” might work, but it also embodies Bacon’s underlying ideas about the mutually beneficial relationship between evidence, ideas, and then further evidence through new experiments. The telescope represents a use of knowledge to extend human power and produce more knowledge.

Bacon mentions several other historical and mythical figures in Novum Organum. He compares himself to Columbus: “We must, therefore, disclose and prefix our reasons for not thinking the hope of success improbable, as Columbus, before his wonderful voyage over the Atlantic, gave the reasons of his conviction that new lands […] might be discovered” (35). He uses this well-known figure to present himself in the same vein: as a well-informed explorer of new frontiers, primed for success. Bacon’s Eurocentric understanding of the world informs his depiction, as the Americas Columbus “discovered” were already populated.

Bacon also mentions a number of other historic and mythical figures, as when he compares the real exploits of the Greek and Roman conquerors Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar to the mythical ones of the British King Arthur. In doing so, he compares the study of history to that of scientific endeavor: No one dismisses real exploits on the grounds that other stories are fantastical. He argues that, similarly, the pursuit of sound scientific method should not be undermined by the absurdity or lies of some groups, such as promises to vanquish old age. In the process, Bacon again positions himself alongside figures famed for their pioneering victories.

Overall, these historic figures work to bolster Bacon’s arguments: They are an appeal to the example of history, a comparison for his own bold endeavors, and an illustration of his points.