The Baconian method

Background:

The Organon was used in the school founded by Aristotle at the Lyceum, and some parts of the works seem to be a scheme of a lecture on logic. So much so that after Aristotle's death, his publishers (Andronicus of Rhodes in 50 BC, for example) collected these works.

Following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century, much of Aristotle's work was lost in the Latin West. The Categories and On Interpretation are the only significant logical works that were available in the early Middle Ages. These had been translated into Latin by Boethius. The other logical works were not available in Western Christendom until translated to Latin in the 12th century. However, the original Greek texts had been preserved in the Greek-speaking lands of the Eastern Roman Empire (akaByzantium). In the mid-twelfth century, James of Venice translated into Latin the Posterior Analytics from Greek manuscripts found in Constantinople.

The books of Aristotle were available in the early Arab Empire, and after 750 AD Muslims had most of them, including the Organon, translated into Arabic, sometimes via earlier Syriac translations. They were studied by Islamic and Jewish scholars, including RabbiMoses Maimonides (1135–1204) and the Muslim Judge Ibn Rushd, known in the West as Averroes (1126–1198); both were originally from Cordoba, Spain, although the former left Iberia and by 1168 lived in Egypt.

All the major scholastic philosophers wrote commentaries on the Organon. Aquinas, Ockham and Scotus wrote commentaries on On Interpretation. Ockham and Scotus wrote commentaries on the Categories and Sophistical Refutations. Grosseteste wrote an influential commentary on the Posterior Analytics.

In the Enlightenment there was a revival of interest in logic as the basis of rational enquiry, and a number of texts, most successfully the Port-Royal Logic, polished Aristotelian term logic for pedagogy. During this period, while the logic certainly was based on that of Aristotle, Aristotle's writings themselves were less often the basis of study. There was a tendency in this period to regard the logical systems of the day to be complete, which in turn no doubt stifled innovation in this area. However Francis Bacon published his Novum Organum ("The New Organon") as a scathing attack in 1620.^[2] Immanuel Kant thought that there was nothing else to invent after the work of Aristotle, and a famous logic historian called Karl von Prantl claimed that any logician who said anything new about logic was "confused, stupid or perverse." These examples illustrate the force of influence which Aristotle's works on logic had. Indeed, he had already become known by the Scholastics (medieval Christian scholars) as "The Philosopher", due to the influence he had upon medieval theology and philosophy. His influence continued into the Early Modern period and Organon was the basis of school philosophy even in the beginning of 18th century.^[3] Since the logical innovations of the 19th century, particularly the formulation of modernpredicate logic, Aristotelian logic has fallen out of favor among many analytic philosophers.

Baconian method, methodical observation of facts as a means of studying and interpreting natural phenomena. This essentially empirical method was formulated early in the 17th century by Francis Bacon, an English philosopher, as a scientific substitute for the prevailing systems of thought, which, to his mind, relied all to often on fanciful guessing and the mere citing of authorities to establish truths of science. After first dismissing all prejudices and preconceptions, Bacon’s method, as explained in Novum Organum (1620; “New Instrument”), consisted of three main steps: first, a description of facts; second, a tabulation, or classification, of those facts into three categories—instances of the presence of the characteristic under investigation, instances of its absence, or instances of its presence in varying degrees; third, the rejection of whatever appears, in the light of these tables, not to be connected with the phenomenon under investigation and the determination of what is connected with it.

Bacon may be credited with recognizing, in their essence, the method of agreement, the joint method, and the method of concomitant variations. His emphasis on the exhaustive cataloguing of facts, however, has since been replaced as a scientific method, for it provided no means of bringing investigation to an end or of insightful delimitation of the problem by creative use of hypotheses.

The Baconian method is the investigative method developed by Sir Francis Bacon. The method was put forward in Bacon's book Novum Organum (1620), or 'New Method', and was supposed to replace the methods put forward in Aristotle's Organon. This method was influential upon the development of scientific method in modern science; but also more generally in the early modern rejection of medieval Aristotelianism.

Description in the Novum Organon[edit]

Bacon's view of induction[edit]

Bacon's method is an example of the application of inductive reasoning. By reasoning using "induction", Bacon meant the ability to generalize a finding stepwise, based on accumulating data. He advised proceeding by this method, or in other words, by building a case from the ground up. He wrote in the Novum Organum that

"Our only hope, then is in genuine Induction... There is the same degree of licentiousness and error in forming Axioms, as in abstracting Notions: and that in the first principles, which depend in common induction. Still more is this the case in Axioms and inferior propositions derived from Syllogisms." (See for example, aphorism XVII of the Novum Organum.)

Approach to causality[edit]

The method consists of procedures for isolating and further investigating the form nature, or cause, of a phenomenon, including the method of agreement, method of difference, and method of concomitant variation.^[1]

Bacon suggests that you draw up a list of all things in which the phenomenon you are trying to explain occurs, as well as a list of things in which it does not occur. Then you rank your lists according to the degree in which the phenomenon occurs in each one. Then you should be able to deduce what factors match the occurrence of the phenomenon in one list and don't occur in the other list, and also what factors change in accordance with the way the data had been ranked.

Thus, if an army is successful when commanded by Essex, and not successful when not commanded by Essex: and when it is more or less successful according to the degree of involvement of Essex as its commander, then it is scientifically reasonable to say that being commanded by Essex is causally related to the army's success.

From this Bacon suggests that the underlying cause of the phenomenon, what he calls the "form," can be approximated by interpreting the results of one's observations. This approximation Bacon calls the "First Vintage." It is not a final conclusion about the formal cause of the phenomenon but merely a hypothesis. It is only the first stage in the attempt to find the form and it must be scrutinized and compared to other hypotheses. In this manner, the truth of natural philosophy is approached "by gradual degrees," as stated in hisNovum Organum.

Refinements[edit]

The "Baconian method" does not end at the First Vintage. Bacon described numerous classes of Instances with Special Powers, cases in which the phenomenon one is attempting to explain is particularly relevant. These instances, of which Bacon describes 27 in theNovum Organum, aid and accelerate the process of induction.

Aside from the First Vintage and the Instances with Special Powers, Bacon enumerates additional "aids to the intellect" which presumably are the next steps in his method. These additional aids, however, were never explained beyond their initial limited appearance inNovum Organum.

Natural history[edit]

The Natural History of Pliny the Elder was a classical Roman encyclopedia work. Induction, for Bacon's followers, meant a type of rigour applied to factual matters. Reasoning should not be applied in plain fashion to just any collection of examples, an approach identified as "Plinian". In considering natural facts, a fuller survey was required to form a basis for going further.^[2] Bacon made it clear he was looking for more than "a botany" with discursive accretions.^[3]

In concrete terms, the cabinet of curiosities, exemplifying the Plinian approach, was to be upgraded from a source of wonderment to a challenge to science.^[4] The main source in Bacon's works for the approach was his Sylva Sylvarum, and it suggested a more systematic collection of data in the search for causal explanations.^[5]

Underlying the method, as applied in this context, are therefore the "tables of natural history" and the ways in which they are to be constructed. Bacon's background in the common law has been proposed as a source for this concept of investigation.^[6]

As a general intellectual programme, Bacon's ideas on "natural history" have been seen as a broad influence on British writers later in the 17th century, in particular in economic thought and within the Royal Society.^[7]

Idols of the Mind (Idola Mentis)[edit]

Bacon also listed what he called the Idols (false images) of the mind - some are similar to what is now called cognitive bias. He described these as things which obstructed the path of correct scientific reasoning.

Idols of the Tribe (Idola tribus): This is humans' tendency to perceive more order and regularity in systems than truly exists, and is due to people following their preconceived ideas about things.
Idols of the Cave (Idola specus): This is due to individuals' personal weaknesses in reasoning due to particular personalities, likes and dislikes.
Idols of the Marketplace (Idola fori): This is due to confusions in the use of language and taking some words in science to have a different meaning than their common usage.
Idols of the Theatre (Idola theatri): This is the following of academic dogma and not asking questions about the world.

These four fallacies are sometimes compared to a similar list in the first part of Roger Bacon's Opus Majus which, although it was much older, had not been printed in Francis Bacon's time.

Influence[edit]

Thomas Browne the physician (1605–82) was one of the first writers scientists to adhere to the empiricism of the Baconian method. His encyclopaedia Pseudodoxia Epidemica (1646–76) includes numerous examples of Baconian investigative methodology; and its preface paraphrases lines from Bacon's essay On Truth in his 1605 work The Advancement of Learning. Isaac Newton's saying hypotheses non fingo (I don't frame hypotheses) was occurs in later editions of the Principia. It represents his preference for rules that could be demonstrated, as opposed to unevidenced hypotheses.

The Baconian method was further developed and promoted by John Stuart Mill. His 1843 book, A System of Logic, was an effort to shed further light on issues of causation. In this work, he formulated the five principles of inductive reasoning now known as Mill's methods.

Mill's Methods are five methods of induction described by philosopher John Stuart Mill in his 1843 book A System of Logic.^[1] They are intended to illuminate issues of causation.

Mill's The methods[edit]

Direct method of agreement[edit]

If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all the instances agree, is the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon.

—John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Vol. 1. 1843. p. 454.

For a property to be a necessary condition it must always be present if the effect is present. Since this is so, then we are interested in looking at cases where the effect is present and taking note of which properties, among those considered to be 'possible necessary conditions' are present and which are absent. Obviously, any properties which are absent when the effect is present cannot be necessary conditions for the effect.

Symbolically, the method of agreement can be represented as:

A B C D occur together with w x y z

A E F G occur together with w t u v

——————————————————

Therefore A is the cause, or the effect, of w.

Example: Charles worked for two years at a hospital. During this time, the number of deaths increased dramatically.^{[further explanation needed]}

Clarification: In this case, Charles would be employee A at the hospital, and the increased deaths would be outcome w. B, C, D, E, F, and G would be other employees. Any other measurement at the hospital (e.g., decreased patient wait times, fewer people entering the hospital, etc.) could be the other outcomes (t, u, v, x, y, or z).

Method of difference[edit]

If an instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs, and an instance in which it does not occur, have every circumstance save one in common, that one occurring only in the former; the circumstance in which alone the two instances differ, is the effect, or cause, or an necessary part of the cause, of the phenomenon.

—John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Vol. 1. 1843. p. 455.

A B C D occur together with w x y z

B C D occur together with x y z

——————————————————

Therefore A is the cause, or the effect, or a part of the cause of w.

Joint method of agreement and difference[edit]

If two or more instances in which the phenomenon occurs have only one circumstance in common, while two or more instances in which it does not occur have nothing in common save the absence of that circumstance; the circumstance in which alone the two sets of instances differ, is the effect, or cause, or a necessary part of the cause, of the phenomenon.

—John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Vol. 1. 1843. p. 463.

Also called simply the "joint method, " this principle simply represents the application of the methods of agreement and difference.

Symbolically, the Joint method of agreement and difference can be represented as:

A B C occur together with x y z

A D E occur together with x v w also B C occur with y z

——————————————————

Therefore A is the cause, or the effect, or a part of the cause of x.

Method of residue[edit]

Subduct^[2] from any phenomenon such part as is known by previous inductions to be the effect of certain antecedents, and the residue of the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining antecedents.

—John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Vol. 1. 1843. p. 465.

If a range of factors are believed to cause a range of phenomena, and we have matched all the factors, except one, with all the phenomena, except one, then the remaining phenomenon can be attributed to the remaining factor.

Symbolically, the Method of Residue can be represented as:

A B C occur together with x y z

B is known to be the cause of y

C is known to be the cause of z

——————————————————

Therefore A is the cause or effect of x.

Method of concomitant variations[edit]

Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever another phenomenon varies in some particular manner, is either a cause or an effect of that phenomenon, or is connected with it through some fact of causation.

—John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Vol. 1. 1843. p. 470.

If across a range of circumstances leading to a phenomenon, some property of the phenomenon varies in tandem with some factor existing in the circumstances, then the phenomenon can be associated with that factor. For instance, suppose that various samples of water, each containing both salt and lead, were found to be toxic. If the level of toxicity varied in tandem with the level of lead, one could attribute the toxicity to the presence of lead.

Symbolically, the method of concomitant variation can be represented as (with ± representing a shift):

A B C occur together with x y z

A± B C results in x± y z.

—————————————————————

Therefore A and x are causally connected

Unlike the preceding four inductive methods, the method of concomitant variation doesn't involve the elimination of any circumstance. Changing the magnitude of one factor results in the change in the magnitude of another factor.

References[edit]

Jump up^ Churchill, Robert Paul (1990). Logic: An Introduction (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 418. ISBN 0-312-02353-7. OCLC 21216829. "In his book A System of Logic (1843), Mill proposed four methods for testing causal hypotheses: the method of agreement, the method of difference, the joint method of agreement and difference, and the method of concomitant variation.⁷ (footnote 7: Mill also proposed a fifth method, which he called the method of residues.)"
Jump up^ "Subduct" is an archaic word meaning "take away" or "subtract".

Web Journal