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 WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
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.
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Is her opinion about Bacon's homosexuality really reliable ? On her wikipedia page, it is stated that she was deeply influenced by Rajneesh who suggested and "blessed" the writing of this biography, the same man for whom "Homosexuals, because they were perverted, created the disease AIDS" and who said to "a gay sannyasin" that "as a homosexual, (he was) not even a human being". Isn't it a big bias ? […]." 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Her work is cited here for non-controversial details, or for examples of opinions in the debate about his sexuality, so I don't see this as an issue. Lot's of people, including academics, have belonged to religious groups who's leaders have disparaged homosexuality or held regressive views, but we don't automatically dismiss them for it. Even if we accepted the connection between her religion and her position on Bacon's sexuality, WP:BIASED sources are not necessarily unreliable sources. So did Rajneesh say something relevant specifically about Bacon? More importantly, did Mathews say that about Bacon, or did she cite her religious beliefs as part of her work? If so, that might be a problem, but even so it's all about context. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I thank you for you answer. I think it's a problem because on the one hand, Nieves Mathews stated herself candidly that this book was Rajneesh's idea ; the same Rajneesh who, she wrote, "thought highly of Sir Francis Bacon" and who, otherwise, was clearly homophobic. And on the other hand, the title of the book itself "Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination" suggest the aim to whitewash a priori all "unpleasant" sides (homosexuality is clearly part of these in their mind) of the character. I just think all of this isn't uninteresting, but anyway it's just an observation that had to be made -on the PD at least-, I believe. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
It's worth considering. Looking at the talk page archives, it appears someone brought this up back in October 2007, but it couldn't hurt to readdress it every ten years or so. I think it would be a mistake to hold her religious life against her. Her assessment of Bacon may possibly be biased or opinionated, but that doesn't necessarily make the factual aspects false. We usually give the fact-checking of reputable academic publishers like Yale University Press the benefit of the doubt. It also sets a dangerous and unpleasant precedent to discount her through guilt by association. Frankly, I'm also cautious of her work with Velikovsky, as his theories are at the extreme edges of academia. There, also, I think dismissing her work would be an overreaction, but it's worth treating with caution. Grayfell (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Removed due to inappropriateness on my part. However, I thought was in a new section. If inadvertently removed anything other than my comments, my apologies.
Despite the myth, Bacon is hardly the father of the scientific method. Robert Grossetesta (ca. 1168–1253), Bishop of Lincoln, had laid down the cannons of a far better experimental method, including the need for controlled experiments. This is well documented in works dealing with the history of science in the Middle Ages such as James Hannam, The Genesis of Science:How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution. It is time to end this distortion of the history of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfpolis (talk • contribs) 14:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Francis Bacon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
I am puzzled by this section in the introduction: "While his own practical ideas about such a method, the Baconian method, did not have a long lasting influence, ..." The Wikipedia article on Baconian Method does not include this kind of negative statement. Does anyone have a reference for that comment? Would anyone object if I removed it from the introduction? Olorinish (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Possibly the intended point is not so clear, and should be worded better instead of removed. Bacon famously argued for the use of a skeptical method in science, and that is of course extremely influential. But the specific detailed method he gave is not really one anyone uses. (The two tables: "Table of Essence and Presence", and "Table of Deviation, or of Absence in Proximity".) I am not sure if anyone ever used these tables much. In other words his general proposal for method was very successful, but (less importantly) his specific methods were not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)