In The New Organon, Bacon suggests
that there are several things for anyone interpreting and writing of history. His
second suggestion states that writers should not focus on the subtle variations
seen in natural history, as these subtleties are petty. He equates these
interesting yet useless characteristics to the nature of individual people:
“…there is little point in natural histories, indulging in
numerous description and pictures of species and in minute varieties of the
same things. Such petty variations are nothing more than nature’s fin and
games, and are quite close to the nature of an individual. They offer a kind of
ramble through the things themselves which is attractive and delightful, but
give little information for the sciences, and what they do is give more or less
superfluous” (Bacon, The New Organon:
Outline of a natural and experimental history, Aphorism III, p.222).
I
actually felt the opposite about overlooking subtle differences in nature.
Though focusing on such a thing may very well be time consuming, I think taking
a deeper look at the delicate variations of species would possibly contribute
more to the sciences in terms of re-investigating what nature is.
Do you think overlooking the subtleties of species in nature
is too “petty” and “superfluous” to be useful in Bacon’s plan to reconstruct
the way people understand and approach nature?
I agree with your opinion. I think the subtleties of species are indeed very important, as they will provide a deeper understanding of nature, evolution, and the nature of the species itself. In the same way as we cannot generalize about the human species without addressing diversity in it, so too can we not make a true statement about the whole of an animal or plant species without doing the same. It is rather frustrating that Bacon would say this, as the introduction to his book focused so much on experimentation and not overlooking small details, as he claimed Aristotle had.
ReplyDelete