Chapter 13 Section 12

one two one There is another objection which must be looked at more carefully.It has been said that there are many things in this natural history which seem strangely and unhelpfully too subtle to the common understanding, indeed to that understanding accustomed to the present system.On this point I must especially repeat what I said earlier, namely: I began tentatively as an experiment in seeking light, not fruit; and as I did so, I have often said, it was following the example of God in creation, who on the first day made only light and spent the whole day All of my time was spent on this matter, and no material work was inserted into the day. ①So to say that that kind of thing is useless is to say that it is useless only because it is not a solid or material thing.The truth is, well-tested and defined knowledge of the nature of simplicity is like light; it shows the way to all the secrets of nature's workshop, and reality also contains and drags behind hordes of deeds, It also opens to us the source of the noblest principles; but it is of little use in itself.In the same way the letters of the alphabet, taken separately, have no use or meaning in themselves, yet they are the material of composition and the instrument of all conversation.Another example is the seeds of things, which have many potential virtues, but they are useless unless they are developed.

It is like light itself, if its scattered rays are not made to converge at one point, they cannot spread their functions. ① Refer to Articles 70, 99, and 117 of Volume 1. - translator If one speaks against subtlety in thought, what shall be said of the scholastics?They indulge too much in subtlety; their subtlety is expended in words, or at least in popular concepts (which are the same thing with words), rather than in natural facts; This subtlety is not only useless in the original but also useless in the consequences; theirs is not the same as I said, it is not true that the present is useless, but the aftereffect is infinite;—for them What should I say about this subtlety?One should make this clear: it would be untimely and unreasonable to apply all the subtleties of polemics and arguments until after the discovery of the axioms; It is when experience is measured and principles are established; for that other subtlety can grasp nature, but never hold it firmly.A saying that people say about chance or luck can no doubt be truely transferred to nature, that is, it has a pile of curly hair on the forehead, but it is bald behind. ①In short, with regard to contempt for the reception of the common, the base, the too subtle, and the useless in the original situation, in natural history, we can take the answer of a poor woman to a noble prince. To paraphrase, when the prince rejected the poor woman's petition as unworthy of dignity, she said: "Then don't be a king." ②There is no doubt that the kingdom of nature can neither be won nor ruled by anyone who regards such things as trivial and despicable and disdains to pay attention to them. ①Opportunity has a bunch of curly hair on the forehead, but it is bald on the back—Kachin noted that this comes from a fable entitled "Occasio Depicta" written by Phaedrus, see the eighth chapter of the fifth volume of his fables (Phaedrus , a fable writer in the Augusta era in Rome, wrote ninety-seven poems in the style of poetry, most of which were rewritten), and the English proverb has the phrase "take occasion by the forelock" (take occasion by the forelock) Language, Gai originated from this.

(This fable and this proverb say: to seize opportunities, you must prepare in advance, catch them head-on, if you lag behind, you will be out of control; and Bacon used this meaning to explain nature, saying: you must be in the right place at the right time Establish axioms after you have mastered real experience, and don't start from unfounded principles to argue against time.——Translator ) ② This is an anecdote about King Philip of Macedonia, see "Apophthegmata" by Plutarch. It is strange and reckless, again, to think how we can simultaneously push aside all science and all writers at one blow, and rely on our own strength without the help and support of any ancients.

I know that if I had chosen a course less sincere, I could easily find authority for my proposals by going back to pre-Greek antiquity (when natural philosophy was perhaps more advanced). well-developed, though comparatively obscure as they have not yet been magnified by the megaphone of the Greeks), or even by attributing part of them to certain Greek scholars, one may find both support and reputation for them, just as family pedigree Unidentified people refer to the genealogy and call it the same as the distant descendants of the Chinese race.But not me.I rely on the evidence and reality of things, and I reject all forms of fiction and deceit.And I think it has nothing to do with our current task at all whether the discoveries we are about to make have been known to the ancients, whether they have risen and fallen with the changes of things and the passage of time, just as it has nothing to do with the new world. The island of Atlantis, known to the ancients, or whether it is only now being discovered for the first time, has nothing to do with humans.In short, new discoveries must be sought from the light of nature, not from the darkness of ancient times. ① Kachin notes, see "Timaeus" in Plato's Dialogues. - translator

As to the generality of my censure, we must, if we consider the matter seriously, find that such a censure is not only more proper, but also more polite, than a partial one.For if errors were not rooted in primordial concepts, some real discovery must have been made to correct the false discovery.It is precisely because mistakes are fundamental rather than fallacies of judgment and carelessness that people do not achieve what they did not seek, achieve goals they did not set, and do not accomplish what they did not go or do. It is not surprising that the journey has not been adhered to. As for the arrogance and boastfulness of my censure, I can explain that if a person claims to be able to draw a straight line straighter and a circle more correct than others with the strength of his hand and eyesight alone, then he Of course he was provoking a contest of ability; but if he only said that he could draw a straight line or a circle better with the help of a ruler and compass than a man with only his hands and eyes, it would not be much boasting. .This statement, I hope people will notice, is not only applicable to my own first and initial attempt, but also applies to all people who have taken up this work since then.My method of discovering science has much to do with the wisdom of men, and very little with individual excellence, for here everything is done by the most reliable rules and arguments. ① In this way, my contribution in this, I have often said, is due to luck rather than ability; it is not so much the product of wisdom as the product of time. ② Undoubtedly, in people's thinking, as in people's work and career, more or less opportunity has something to do with it. ① See volume 6.1. - translator

② See seven or eight articles in one volume. - translator one two three Speaking of this, I can quote a joke that someone said before to explain myself (because it marks the difference between me and others very clearly), that is: "If a person drinks water, a If people drink, then our thoughts will not be the same." ① Now when it comes to scientific issues, other people, whether ancient or modern, are drinking unrefined beverages like water. as well water is drawn with a potter's wheel; and the cup of wine which I hold up to bless mankind is strained from countless grapes, which are picked in clusters when they are just ripe, and gathered together, The juice is squeezed out in a press and finally purified and clarified in vats.

From this point of view, it is not surprising that my thinking is different from theirs. ①This is what Philocrates said about Demosthenes, see the book "De Falsa Legatione" by the latter. one two four No doubt, it was thought again, that the aims and purposes which I set myself (and this again is what I object to others) are neither true nor the best; sublime and more valuable; to indulge in such eagerness in experience, in matter, in the fluctuations and variations of particular things, is to withdraw the mind from the serene celestial realm of abstract intelligence, and to drag it to the ground or Into the chaos of hell.I agree with that; and what they say is desirable is exactly what I want to do.It is precisely that I am trying to construct in human understanding a true model of the world, as it is, and not as each individual's own reason wishes; and to do so will require laborious dissection of the world.I would also say that all those stupid, fabricated images of the world that people have created out of fantasies in philosophical systems must be thrown into the wind and blown away.We should know what a great difference there is (as stated above) between the illusions of the mind and the ideas of the will.The former is nothing but an arbitrary abstraction; the latter is the stamp of the Creator himself on creation, stamped in matter with true and fine lines. ②In this way, truth and function are the same thing here: ③All kinds of merits themselves, as evidence of truth, are more valuable than improving the comfort of life. ④①Kachin pointed out that this alludes to a Platonic and Aristotle-like idea.

② Refer to the second and third articles and notes of Volume 1. - translator ③The original Latin version uses the word ipsissimoeres here, literally, it cannot be translated as "it is the same thing", but the original translator believes that Bacon must mean this. (This determination is entirely justified. At the beginning of this book, it is said in the third article, "Human knowledge and human power are brought together into one"; in the third article of the second volume, it is also said, "The discovery of French formulas can enable people to obtain truth in speculation and freedom in action." ; the fourth article of the second volume says more clearly, "whatever is most useful in terms of action is the most true in terms of knowledge".These words can be used as an annotation for this sentence. - translator

) ④ Regarding Bacon’s views on the relationship between truth and merit, the purpose of science and how to achieve this purpose, that is to say, on the question of whether Bacon is a simple utilitarian, read this sentence carefully and refer to Volume 8 One, 1172, can be understood. - translator one twenty five Still others think that what I am doing is what others have done before.That is to say, the ancients also took the course that I am taking; and that is to say, after all these turmoil and struggles, I must at last arrive at one of the many systems which prevailed earlier in antiquity. .They said that when the ancients began to think, they also prepared a lot of rich examples and special things; compiled them into a long compilation; based on them, they completed their philosophical system and various alchemy techniques; After the matter is clarified, those systems and alchemy will be published, but at this time only a few examples are inserted in a few places for proof and explanation. Published, the ancients thought it was superficial and inconvenient.This, they say, is the same as that of the builders: after the house is built, the gables and ladders are removed; the ancients no doubt did this.To this objection (or rather a misgiving) I will point out that it will be easily answered by anyone who has not quite forgotten what I have said above.The ways in which the ancients used to engage in inquiries and discoveries were their own explicit admissions, which can be seen on the superficial surface of their writings.The method is simply this: they fly from a few examples and particulars (plus some general concepts, and perhaps a part of the most popular accepted opinion) to the most general conclusions or first principles of science , and regard them as fixed and unchangeable truths, and then use intermediate propositions as means to draw and prove some lower conclusions from them, and construct alchemy from these lower conclusions. ①After this, if new particulars and examples which violate their dogma are brought up and discussed, they do not make some divisions or explanations of their own laws and melt them skillfully into their system , ② is to simply exclude them as exceptions; ③ as for those special things that do not violate, they try to explain them with reasons that are in line with their principles.But know that this kind of natural history and experience is not what we need, far from it; and also know that everything is ruined by flying to something of the highest generality. ① Refer to Articles 19, 22, 104, and 105 of Volume 1. - translator

② See volume 25 and notes. - translator ③Kachin explained with an example that regarding the correct attitude towards so-called exceptional phenomena, one can take astronomers’ handling of the Uranus problem as an example: they saw the disturbance of Uranus, which seems to be sufficient as counter-evidence to overthrow the theory of planetary motion. law; they did not explain this fact, but pursued its cause, and thus discovered Neptune.Again, the inductive case for the law of gravitation is too strong to be overthrown by a seemingly contrary instance. one two six It is also thought, that I propose to suspend judgment, since I thus forbid that principles should not be proclaimed and enacted as established until they have duly passed the middle steps to what is of the highest generality. , and this leads to what the Greeks called the inexplicable, the denial of the human mind's ability to understand truth.On this point, I want to say that what I am thinking and presenting is actually not ignorance, but epistemicism; not denying the ability to understand, but being equipped to understand truly.For I do not abolish the authority of the senses, but give it aid; I do not despise the understanding, but govern it. ①We should know what we need to know, but we still think that we don't know what we know. If we think we know what we know, but we don't know what we need to know, it will be much worse. ①Refer to the last section of Volume 37 and Article 67

. - translator one twenty seven Another point is not so much an objection as a question.Do I, it is asked, in advocating this method, mean only that natural philosophy should proceed in this way, or that every other science, as well as logic, ethics, political science, etc., should proceed in the same way?I replied that what I had said before was of course referring to all these.Just as the ordinary logic governed by the syllogism applies not only to natural science but to all sciences, so my logic, governed by induction, permeates all.I have not only made tables of histories and discoveries in cold, heat, light, plants, and the like; of wrath, fear, shame, and the like; Judgments and others, etc., I likewise make tables of histories and discoveries.But be aware that after the history is prepared and arranged, since my method of interpretation is not limited to the operations or reasonings of the mind (as in ordinary logic) but also to the nature of things, I shall give a rule to the mind. and guide to make it in every plot can properly cast itself upon the nature of things.I have, therefore, introduced many different rules in my doctrine of interpretation, so that men may vary their methods of invention slightly according to the nature and circumstances of their subject-matter. ①The so-called composition and division here, Ellis said, may mean synthesis and analysis; affirmation and negation). one twenty eight There is another point that should not even be doubted, and that is to ask whether I want to overthrow and destroy all existing philosophy, alchemy, and science.Far from it, I replied; I was happiest to see them used, cultivated, and honored.If we say that the various technologies that are fashionable now should not continue to be used as materials for debate, should not continue to be used as decorations for conversation, should not continue to be used for the convenience of professors and business people, in short, they should not continue to be used as There is no reason why a common currency should be so popular among men by consent.Nay, I declare frankly that what I am now advocating is seldom at all fit for such purposes, since it cannot be reduced to common comprehension except in effect and merit. ①The sincerity with which I thus profess my sympathy and goodwill for accepted science is amply seen in my published works, especially in the volumes of Advancement of Learning, so I do not The picture is further proved by the text.But at the same time I give my constant and clear warning that it is impossible, by the methods now in use, to make either great advances in doctrine or in the speculative part of science, nor to bring them to fruition. ① See the fourth section of the preamble . - translator one twenty nine Having said this, it is only a few words to say a few words about the excellence of this goal in mind.These words, which had been uttered earlier, might have been regarded as empty wishes; now that hope has been raised, and unjust prejudices have been removed, they may carry more weight.Besides, if I had done everything myself, and had not had the opportunity to invite others to help and join in the work, I would even now refrain from saying such things, lest people should think that I was announcing my own guilt.But since I want to promote the efforts of others and kindle their enthusiasm, it is fitting that I should call attention to certain things. First of all, it should be said that the introduction of famous discoveries should rank first among all human activities. This is the judgment made by the predecessors of all ages.All ages have paid divine honors to inventors; ) is the highest posthumous title of a hero.If people compare the two correctly, they will undoubtedly see that this judgment of the ancients is just.For the benefits of discoveries extend to the whole of mankind, while civil services only to particular places; the latter last but a few generations, the former forever; Realization, while discovery has its own blessings, and its benefits to human beings do not cause harm and pain to anyone. Besides, discovery can be counted as a new creation, as an imitation of God's work, as the poet well said: The frail primitive people know no crops, Great was the Athenians who sowed first, From then on, oily fields grew, Recreated our life in the underworld. ①① Lucretius, about 95 to 31 BC, a Roman poet, wrote a philosophical precept poem entitled De Rerum Natura, in six volumes, advocating atheism and materialism; The few sentences quoted can be found in the sixth volume, lines one to three. - translator Having said that, it can be pointed out that Solomon (Solomon) does have something to praise.Although he was great and powerful in ruling the empire, in gold and silver wealth, in great achievements, in the court and family, in the arming of the fleet, and in all aspects of fame and respect at home and abroad, and in the hearts of the people, but he None of these are cited as glory, but only said: "God's glory lies in hiding things, and the king's glory lies in searching them out." ①①See the Bible, Proverbs Chapter 25, Verse 2 . Secondly, let people think how different life is between the most civilized parts of Europe and the most savage parts of New India, and they will feel that there is truth in the saying "Man is God of man" Yes, not only in terms of the help and welfare that people receive, but also in terms of the comparison of living conditions. But where does this difference come from?It has nothing to do with soil, climate, or race, the difference is only in alchemy. ① Kachin noted that this is a quote from Caecilius, but Bacon expanded its original meaning. - translator Again, we should also be mindful of the power, efficacy, and consequences of discoveries.These points are nowhere more evident than in three inventions unknown to the ancients, discovered relatively recently, and whose origins are still ambiguous: printing, gunpowder, and the magnet. These three inventions have changed the whole face and condition of things throughout the world: the first in learning, the second in warfare, the third in navigation; No empire, no sect, no star seems to have had more power and influence over human affairs than these mechanical discoveries. To go further, we may wish to distinguish three types of human ambition, or three levels.The first is to expand one's own power within the country. This kind of ambition is base and depraved.The second is to expand the power and territory of one's own country among the people. Although this kind of ambition has more dignity, it is not less greedy.But if someone tries to face the universe to establish and expand the power and domain of man himself, then this ambition (if it can be called ambition) is undoubtedly healthier and nobler than the first two.And when it comes to human beings wanting to build their own empire over all things, it all depends on alchemy and science.For we cannot dominate nature unless we obey it. Moreover, since some individual discovery is regarded as more important than the virtue that affects mankind, how much higher is it if one discovery can be used as an instrument to facilitate the discovery of all other things? what!I also want to use light as a metaphor to explain (to be honest), light enables us to travel, read books, study alchemy, and recognize each other. Its functions are indeed unlimited, but when people see light, this fact itself Superior and better than all its functions.Likewise, the very fact that we speculate about things is more valuable than all the fruits of inventions, provided our speculations are truthful, free from superstition, deceit, error, and confusion. As a last point, let no one be moved by the objection that alchemy and science may be misused for evil, extravagant, etc. ends.For if that were to be said, all the virtues of the world, such as wisdom, courage, strength, beauty, wealth, light itself, and others, must be equally objected to.Let us only restore to man the right which the gods bequeathed and inherent in nature, and endow him with a power; how to use it is governed by sound reason and true religion. one thirty The time has come for me to state the art of explaining nature itself.In this art, though I feel that I have given the true and most useful rule, I neither say it is absolutely necessary (as if nothing could be done without it), nor Say it is as good as it gets.For it seems to me that, if only a correct natural and empirical history is at hand, and laboriously devotes itself to it; if only the following two rules can be observed:—First, accepted opinions and concepts should be set aside. Second, don't worry about the highest universality and the second highest universality that is only one level away for the time being-then they can walk into my kind without any magic but only by the pure power inherent in the heart. way of explaining. Because the so-called interpretation is nothing but a real and natural activity of the mind when it is free of hindrances.But if it is said that everything is more prepared and more certain with my rules, it is true. Nor do I say that my rules cannot be further improved.On the contrary, since I am talking about the mind not only in terms of its own function, but also in terms of its connection with things, then of course I must maintain that the art of discovery will advance with the discovery.