This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hertfordshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I am not sure exactly what your question is. If you wondering the relevance of the passage that gives a cursory overview of the Industrial Revolution, then my response would be that it is really superfluous to the entry. Granted Bacon is cited a foundational thinker for the Industrial Revolution; however, however a hyperlink to the entry on "The Industrial Revolution" would seem more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atownnative (talk • contribs) 02:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The current article refers offhandedly to the 'arbitrary policies' of James I. I'm puzzled by this. I was under the impression that he was, if anything, an unusually intellectual king, and not given to insufficient reflection. I'd remove the 'arbitrary', but perhaps someone with more knowledge of James I (or simply of what was intended by the phrase here) might chime in. I suspect that what was intended may have been simply something to the effect that Bacon supported whatever policy James I happened to advocate, irrespective of what it was (the quasi-mathematical sense of the word, which isn't familiar to most people and not the one associated with governance). MJM74 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
My guess is that the poster was refering to Stuart absolutism or also known as arbitary rule. The reign of James I and Charles I was charactertized by a very hostile relationship between the crown and Parilament. (Charles I actually didn't call a Parliamnet from 1629 to 1640, known as the era of "Personal Rule.") The stage was set early on in James' reign when Parliament refused to pass the his Act of Unificaiton. Also, consider the state of Scottish politics that James had to endure since he was a child. The Scottish crown never had that much control over the lords; Mary Queen of Scotts was placed on trial and fled to England leaving her son James behind to be raised in a very hostile polticial environment. (Look up George Buchanan) Anyway, "arbitrary rule" refers to how the Stuart Monarchs ruled without reference to Parliament. (Look up Charles I and Ship Money Tax.) So "arbitrary" probably should be placed back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
With a category dedicated to Francis Bacon himself, shouldn't all (or most of) the categories listed under the article actually go under his category instead (in other words, be the categories the Francis Bacon category comes under, thereby obviating the need to include them at the Francis Bacon page itself)? Artaxerxes (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This sounds like a squib written in honor of St. Bacon. Just saying....
Bacon had three goals: to uncover truth, to serve his country, and to serve his church.
In my experience the biographies get more interesting if we strive for a higher standard of objectivity. This is for anyone who sees my point and wants to offer some better language. Keep the peace--BenJonson (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I am thinking about adding a section to this article covering Bacon in light of the modern environmental movement. Following the 2010 Gulf oil spill, his name kept popping up as the turning point in western thought when humanity began to perceive the environment to be exploited for material benefit. I know that this view of Bacon is highly controversial among scholars, i.e. Carolyn Merchant, Perez Zagorin, and Nieves Matthews, to just name a few. I think it might be a good idea to contextualize Bacon's claim that humanity could subjugate Nature within two competing historigraphies: one that saw the natural world as having been irreparably corrupted by the Fall and the other, associated with Bacon, that humanity, through empirical investigation and manipulation of Nature, could re-establish an Edenic harmony, or Adamic dominance, once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The page states Francis Bacon has been attribute with being the creator of empiricism and practitioner of the Scientific Method sometimes called the Baconian Method. This suggests to me that Bacon is attributed with being the founder, or one of the founders, of scientific method. I notice that the page on Scientific Method (the?) includes only a few reference to Francis Bacon and describes him as a follower of the scientific method and creator of 'a new system of logic'. The impression I get is that Bacon was by no means one of the founders of scientific method but rather an influential advocate of the method which was a base for his development of another or other scientific theories. Is this correct? If yes it needs to be made clearer because at the moment the two pages are at odds with one another.
It is hard to say. Bacon was the really the first to formulate the notion of an empirical study of nature that would be devoted to ameliorating the material existence of humanity. (Although the notion that knowledge should be directed to our physical well-being was circulating throughout Renaissance Europe. Bacon cites alchemists, such as Roger Bacon and Paracelsus, as informing his thinking.) By no means was Bacon the first to suggest basing knowledge on empirical data. Consider that Copernicus had written Of the Revolution of Celestial Spheres in 1543, in which he challenged geocentric cosmology based on his observations. (Bacon actually rejected Copernicus' heliocentric universe.)While he never really was much of a scientist, Bacon was a propagandist for the "new science." I guess the reason why he has garnered the title of founder of the Scientific Method is due to how much the Royal Society was influenced by his writings. The members based their organization on the House of Salomon that Bacon writes about in his New Atlantis. So to return to your question: it is not just that bacon was an influential advocate for the new science but was the advocate for the new science. Early scientific authors, such as Robert Boyle or Robert Hooke, cite Bacon as structuring the foundation for their thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atownnative (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The phrase "'spring of a progeny of inventions, which shall overcome, to some extent, and subdue our needs and miseries'" is given as a quote from The Great Instauration. It is a reasonable paraphrasing of a statement from that text:
"The explanation of which things, and of the true relation between the nature of things and the nature of the mind, is as the strewing and decoration of the bridal chamber of the mind and the universe, the divine goodness assisting, out of which marriage let us hope (and be this the prayer of the bridal song) there may spring helps to man, and a line and race of inventions that may in some degree subdue and overcome the necessities and miseries of humanity."