Novum organum or, True suggestions for the interpretation of nature
- Language:
- English
- Status:
- Complete work
- Authorship:
- Written by the author
- Condition of the text:
- No scanning noise detected (automatic measure over the whole text, not checked by hand)
- Extent:
- ~96,200 words · 457 passages
Cite this work
- APAFrancis Bacon. (n.d.). Novum organum or, True suggestions for the interpretation of nature. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/francis-bacon/novum-organum-or-true-suggestions-for-the-interpretation-of-nature
- MLAFrancis Bacon. Novum organum or, True suggestions for the interpretation of nature. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/en/works/francis-bacon/novum-organum-or-true-suggestions-for-the-interpretation-of-nature.
- ChicagoFrancis Bacon. Novum organum or, True suggestions for the interpretation of nature. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/francis-bacon/novum-organum-or-true-suggestions-for-the-interpretation-of-nature.
Reference to the edition that SigPhi reproduces: SigPhi is its digital reproduction, not its publisher. The edition's year is not in the metadata (hence "n.d."), and the translator appears only when recorded.
What it is about
The proposal of a new method for knowing nature: to begin from observation and rise gradually to laws, instead of deducing everything from inherited principles.
Context and history
Published in 1620 as the second part of the Instauratio Magna, a six-part project Bacon never finished. The title is set against Aristotle's Organon, treated here as the obstacle to be overcome. Its most-read section is the four 'idols' — of the tribe, the cave, the marketplace and the theatre — the characteristic ways the human mind deceives itself.
Editorial context, not a citable source: unlike the passages of the work itself, these statements cannot be checked against the corpus.
LIV. Some men become attached to particular sciences and contemplations, either from supposing themselves the authors and inventors of them, or from having bestowed the greatest pains upon such subjects, and thus become most habituated to them.[22] If men of this description apply themselves to philosophy and contemplations of a universal nature, they wrest and corrupt them by their preconceived fancies, of which Aristotle affords us a single instance, who made his natural philosophy completely subservient to his logic, and thus rendered it little more than useless and disputatious. The chemists, again, have formed a fanciful philosophy with the most confined views, from a few experiments of the furnace. Gilbert,[23] too, having employed himself most assiduously in the consideration of the magnet, immediately established a system of philosophy to coincide with his favorite pursuit. LV. The greatest and, perhaps, radical distinction between different men’s dispositions for philosophy and the sciences is this, that some are more vigorous and active in observing the differences of things, others in observing their resemblances; for a steady and acute disposition can fix its thoughts, and dwell upon and adhere to a point, through all the refinements of differences, but those that are sublime and discursive recognize and compare even the most delicate and general resemblances; each of them readily falls into excess, by catching either at nice distinctions or shadows of resemblance. LVI. Some dispositions evince an unbounded admiration of antiquity, others eagerly embrace novelty, and but few can preserve the just medium, so as neither to tear up what the ancients have correctly laid down, nor to despise the just innovations of the moderns.…