Crucial Instances and Francis Bacon’s Quest for Certainty


Authors
Daniel Schwartz
University of California, San Diego
Abstract
Francis Bacon’s method of induction is often understood as a form of eliminative induction. The idea, on this interpretation, is to list the possible formal causes of a phenomenon and, by reference to a copious and reliable natural history, to falsify all of them but one. Whatever remains must be the formal cause. Bacon’s crucial instances are often seen as the crowning example of this method. In this article, I argue that this interpretation of crucial instances is mistaken, and it has caused us to lose sight of why Bacon assigns crucial instances a special role in his quest for epistemic certainty about formal causes. If crucial instances are interpreted eliminatively, then they are subject to the two problems related to underdetermination raised by Duhem: (1) that it is impossible to be certain one has specified all of the possible alternatives and (2) that an experiment falsifies a whole theory, not just a single hypothesis in isolation. I show that Bacon anticipates and aims to dodge both of these problems by conceiving of crucial instances as working, in the ideal case, through direct affirmations that are supported by links to more foundational knowledge.
Keywords Francis Bacon  Induction  Underdetermination  Duhem
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2017
DOI 10.1086/691131
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 46,238
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Why Bacon’s Method is Not Certain.Robert Lane - 1999 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 16 (2):181 - 192.
Is Baconian Natural History Theory-Laden?Daniel Schwartz - 2014 - Journal of Early Modern Studies 3 (1).
Francis Bacon and the ‘Vexations of Art’: Experimentation as Intervention.Carolyn Merchant - 2013 - British Journal for the History of Science 46 (4):551-599.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-04-06

Total views
32 ( #286,025 of 2,285,781 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #128,551 of 2,285,781 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature