Philosophy › Renaissance & the new science › The Scientific Revolution
Francis Bacon and the scientific method
1561–1626· Philosopher· Knowledge, logic & science
Well documentedSolid records, texts or physical evidence.
English statesman and philosopher who argued that knowledge should be built from systematic observation and experiment, not from ancient authorities.
See it on the Philosophy map →The idea
The idea: gather facts methodically, test them, especially against counterexamples, and rise step by step to general laws (induction). In Novum Organum (1620), his 'new instrument' to replace Aristotle's logic, Bacon also listed four 'idols', habitual errors such as being misled by words or by fashionable systems. A lawyer, he rose to Lord Chancellor of England but was convicted of taking bribes in 1621. The main objection: real breakthroughs came more from bold hypotheses and mathematics than from patient fact-collecting.
Why it matters
He gave science its public program, knowledge as power for human benefit; London's Royal Society (1660) named him its inspiration, and British empiricism grew from his approach.
Legacy and sources
Novum Organum, The Advancement of Learning (1605) and New Atlantis (1626) survive; parliamentary records document his 1621 impeachment; Royal Society founders praised him in print.
Still debated
Whether he caught his fatal chill stuffing a chicken with snow to test refrigeration, as John Aubrey reported, is uncertain; so is how much scientists actually used his method.
Connections (3)
▸Francis Bacon and the scientific method gave a method to The Scientific RevolutionWell documented
The connection
Bacon argued that science should be a collective, organized enterprise of experiments and careful records, aimed at practical benefit. His New Atlantis imagined a research institute, Salomon's House. The founders of London's Royal Society explicitly adopted his program, and his stress on experiment and data shaped English science.
When and how
London; Bacon's writings date from 1605 to 1626, and the Royal Society, founded in 1660 by Robert Boyle, John Wilkins, Christopher Wren and others, carried the program forward.
How we know
Thomas Sprat's History of the Royal Society (1667) hails Bacon as its inspiration, and its frontispiece shows his portrait.
Debates and open questions
Historians debate how much his method shaped actual discoveries; Galileo and Newton relied heavily on mathematics, which Bacon underrated.
▸Francis Bacon and the scientific method inspired British empiricismWell documented
The connection
Bacon argued that knowledge should be built up from careful observation and experiment, not deduced from ancient authorities, and warned of the mind's 'idols', habits that distort judgment. Boyle, the Royal Society and Locke took up his program, and British empiricism grew out of that experimental culture.
When and how
Bacon's New Organon, London, 1620; the Royal Society, founded in London in 1660, took him as its guide; Locke's Essay followed in 1689.
How we know
Thomas Sprat's History of the Royal Society (1667) praises Bacon as its inspiration, and Locke's Essay echoes Bacon's warnings about words and idols.
Debates and open questions
How directly Bacon shaped Locke's theory of ideas, as opposed to the general scientific mood, is debated.
▸Francis Bacon and the scientific method championed the induction questioned in Hume's problem of inductionMostly agreed
The connection
Bacon made induction, reasoning from many observed cases to general laws, the method of the new science. Hume later asked what justifies that step at all, showing that past observations cannot logically guarantee future ones. Bacon's confident method thus became the target of Hume's famous puzzle.
When and how
Bacon's New Organon, London, 1620; Hume's Treatise of Human Nature, 1739, and Enquiry, 1748.
How sure are we?
Hume subtitled his Treatise an attempt to bring the 'experimental method' into moral subjects, and its introduction dates experimental natural philosophy from 'my Lord Bacon'.
Debates and open questions
Bacon's induction, built on eliminating rival explanations, is more careful than simple generalizing; whether Hume's problem hits it equally hard is discussed.