Those who pretend to prescribe the laws of nature as already searched out and understood, whether in the tone of simplistic assurances or in professional affectation, give philosophy as well as The sciences do great harm.For in doing so they are as successful in convincing people as in stifling and stopping discussion; and they do more harm by undermining and cutting off the efforts of others than they gain by their own efforts.On the other hand, there are those who take the opposite course, and assert that absolutely nothing is intelligible—whether they arrive at this insight through hatred of the ancient sophists, or through the wanderings of the mind, or even It is due to their concentration on learning-they undoubtedly advance the demand of reason for knowledge, and this is what is not to be despised; but they neither start from true principles nor return to correct conclusions, enthusiasm and Their pretense led them too far again. ② The older Greeks ③ (whose writings are anecdotal) were with better judgment between these two extremes--the one extreme of judging about everything, the other extreme of being afraid of nothing. Hope to understand - a compromise position has been taken between them.Although they often complain bitterly of the difficulty of inquiry and the elusiveness of things, like impatient horses biting their bit, they still pursue their quarry and struggle with nature; they think (it seems so) The question of whether things are solvable at all cannot be settled by debate, but only by experiment.But they, trusting only in the power of their own understanding, apply no rules, but refer everything to laborious thought, to the constant action and exercise of the mind.

/// ①The Latin name is Novum Organum, which is named after the book "Organum" written by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (Aristotle). ——Translator ② Regarding the above two schools of thought, please refer to the six or seven articles in Volume 1. ——Translator ③Refer to Volume 1 and Article 7. ——Translator/// As for my method, although it is difficult to do, it is easy to explain.It goes like this: I'm proposing to build a progressive ladder to accuracy.The test of the senses, aided and guarded by some kind of corrective process, I reserve for use.As for the mental actions that follow the sensory activities, I reject most of them; I want to start directly with simple sensory perceptions, and open up a new and accurate path for the mind to follow.The necessity of this was evidently felt long ago by those who valued logic; and their regard for logic showed that they were seeking help for the understanding, and that they had no faith in the natural and spontaneous processes of the mind.However, when the mind has been occupied by some unsound theories and besieged by some vain imaginations through the handover and actions in daily life, this prescription comes too late and cannot be remedied.Therefore, the art of logic, since (as I said) it is too late to save, and since it has been unable to correct things, not only has no effect of discovering truth, but fixes some errors.Now there is only one way left for us to restore a sane and healthy condition--that is, to start anew the whole operation of the understanding, and to leave the mind itself from the very beginning, step by step; and it has to be done like a machine.For example, if in mechanical things men work with their bare hands and without the aid of the power of tools, so in intellectual things, if men work with nothing but the naked understanding, then even if they Combined to do their best, there will always be a limit to what they can try and achieve.Now (and pausing on this example for a little insight) we imagine that a great square tower has to be removed for the recognition of martial arts or other great achievements, and that people go to work with their bare hands, ask a sober spectator Do you think they are crazy?If they go to recruit more people, thinking that they can get things done, wouldn't this bystander think that they are even more insane?If they go on to make a selection and screen out the old and weak and use the strong and strong manpower, can this bystander think that they are even more crazy to an unprecedented level?Finally, if they are not satisfied with this method and decide to resort to the alchemy of sports, and ask all the hands to oil and medicate their arm muscles according to the rules of the art of sports, how can this bystander come to do business? Don't shout out, saying that they are just trying their best to show that they are crazy with methods and plans?And that is how men go about intellectual matters—the same mad effort, the same useless effort.They, too, hoped to derive great things from numbers and cooperation, or from the excellence and quickness of individual intellect; yes, they also tried to strengthen the understanding by logic, as muscles are strengthened by athletics.But all this industry and effort of theirs is, in a true judgment, nothing but the constant exercise of the naked intellect.In fact, it is obviously impossible for every great work to be done by human hands without tools and machines, no matter whether it is done by each person or by everyone.

///①In the Latin original, the two nouns dialectica and logica are sometimes used interchangeably, and sometimes they are used separately, while the English version is always translated as logie.Note: dialectica is a kind of alchemy used by ancient Greek scholars to pursue contradictions, seek truth, and overcome opponents by means of dialogue and questioning Difficulties"), to which syllogistic logic is related but also different.As in all "logic" in this preamble The characters seem to be translated according to the original.The following articles will not be specified one by one. ——Translator/// After putting forward these premises, I still have two things to remind people not to ignore.First, when I thought of reducing disapproval and indignation, I saw the fortunate result that the honor and reverence due to the ancients was not touched or diminished by me; The realization of my plan can also receive the effect of modesty.

If I were claiming to be on the same path as the ancients, and I were to produce something better, there would necessarily be a comparison and contest between me and the ancients in intellectual power or excellence (whatever Skillful words are also unavoidable).Although there is nothing illegal or novel in this (if the ancients had wrong understandings and wrong conclusions about something, why can't I use the freedom shared by everyone to innovate with it?) But this An argument, no matter how legitimate and forgivable, in my strength, will be an argument without equal. But since my object was only to open a new way for the understanding, a new way which was not attempted or known to the ancients, the matter is quite different.Here the heat of sectarianism is gone; I appear only as a guide to show the way, and this again is a position of little authority, dependent more on a certain fortune than on ability and excellence.This point is only about the human aspect, so that's all.As for the other point I want to remind people, it is about the thing itself.

I wish you all to remember that I have absolutely no desire to interfere with either the philosophy which is currently prevailing, or with any more correct and complete philosophy which has been or may be given in the future.For I have no objection to the use of this recognized philosophy, or any other similar philosophy, as a subject of debate, as a decoration of conversation, as a lecture by a professor, or as a profession in life.Nay, I further declare openly that the philosophy I propose is of little use for those purposes.It's not on the way.It's not something that can be picked up suddenly while passing by.It flatters people's understanding by not conforming to preconceived notions.Apart from the fact that its utility and effect can be observed, it is not reduced to the understanding of ordinary laymen.

Let, therefore, there be two schools of thought in knowledge (which would be good for both); likewise, let there be two families or branches in philosophers—not antagonistic or opposed, but by means of combined to serve each other.In short, there is one way of producing knowledge and another of inventing it, and we will let them coexist. Whoever thinks the former kind of knowledge preferable, whether because of their impatience, or because they are preoccupied with business, or because they lack the intelligence to acquire the other (which must be the case with most people), I do not hesitate. May they be able to get what they want and get what they want.But if someone else is not content to rest and use only the knowledge that has been found, but desires to delve further; the desire is not to conquer opponents in argument but to conquer nature in action; the desire to seek is not the wonderful and probabilistic conjectures, but exact, demonstrable knowledge; then I invite them all to unite with me as true sons of knowledge, that we may pass through the outer courts of nature where sinners tread, and at last Can find a way to enter its inner chamber.Now, in order to make my meaning clearer, and to make things familiar by naming, I call one of these two methods or paths the adventurousness of the mind, and the other the contemplation of nature. explanation of.

///①The Latin is anticipatio, and the English translation is anticipation; Bacon used this word, which has its own unique meaning. , seems inappropriate; I try to translate it as "fake test" for discussion. ——Translator /// Also, I have one more request.On my own part I have resolved to take care and endeavor, not only to make what I propose true, but to express them in such a way that they are not harsh and unrestrained in the presence of minds, however strange their prejudices and obstacles may be. Not uncomfortable.On the other hand, I cannot say that there is no reason (especially in the midst of such a great work of scholarly and intellectual revival) to demand a kind of favor in return for me, and this is: Thinking forms an opinion and a judgment, whether from their own observations, or from a body of authority, or from some form of argument (which has now acquired the coercive power of laws) I always ask him not to expect to be able to do this by passing by; ask him to investigate the matter thoroughly; ask him to try out for himself the road I have described and planned; familiarizes his mind with the subtleties of nature which experience bears witness to; and beseeches him to correct, with due patience and due slowness, the rotten habits ingrained in his mind: when all this has been done and he begins to become his own master, let him (if he will) use his own judgment.