Talk:Francis Bacon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But the chicken.[edit]

That thing with the chicken and the snow might need to go under accomplishments since he almost stumbled on a huge breakthrough, but I don't know if anyone ever observed the outcome of that experiment, so it might have nothing to do with the invention of refrigeration. What do you all think?

Sceptical?[edit]

Why is this word (in the second paragraph of this article) spelled "sceptical" rather than "skeptical?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by V Schauf (talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

british spelling Snarevox (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

heir to the british throne..[edit]

bacon being the rightful heir to the throne of elizabeth comes up just as and perhaps more often than the shakespeare discussion. it should definitely be added to the historical debates section since there is quite possibly evem more evidence showing it to be true than there is regarding him penning the works of shakespeare. if the shakespeare debate is included, then the heir to the throne debate definitely should be as well. Snarevox (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I’Ve added the link to the Prince Tudor theories. It might be worth a section  chat  O'Brien  22:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More Citations[edit]

The section, "James I comes to the throne", only has five citations. Should more citations be added? For example, one part of this section reads, "Despite a generous income, old debts still could not be paid. He sought further promotion and wealth by supporting King James and his arbitrary policies", but there is not citation following the end of these sentences. This information is not common knowledge, so could the article be improved if sentences such as these were followed by citations? CmisterHistorian (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Father of empiricism" attribution claim[edit]

The statement that Bacon "has been called the father of empiricism." is pretty enormous, even qualified the way it is, and it requires some serious sourcing to adequately present. In previous revisions of the article, the sentence had four sources tacked onto it, two of which were tertiary encyclopedia entries that did not say anything to this effect,[1][2] one quoted secondary source that also did not call Bacon this,[3] and a fourth[4]—the only with clearly similar verbiage—that, while comparing Francis to the Roger Bacon of a previous period, said

[...] Francis, of the sixteenth century, has long been acknowledged as the father of the experimental method [...]

which is not the same statement. Even if it were, I do not think such a huge claim in the article lede is supported by this bundle of sources, and moreover i think that is clear enough that consensus was not required to make this change. However, I'm putting it here for the record, and also because I would like this statement in the lede if it can be properly sourced.

(P.S. I've fulfilled my quota of reverts. If someone else is compelled by this, keep in mind I won't keep removing it.)

References

  1. ^ "Francis Bacon, Viscount St. Alban". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 18 November 2023.
  2. ^ "Francis Bacon". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 18 November 2023.
  3. ^ Evans, Griffith (1926). "The Place of Francis Bacon in the History of the Scientific Method". Rice Institute Pamphlet - Rice University Studies. 13 (1). His theory of knowledge also is insufficient; but, on the other hand, whose is not? We must not throw him aside on that ground. The philosophers Gassendi, Leibnitz,Locke, Hume, and Kant held him in high repute; and substantial portions of most books on logic are devoted to his treatment of induction. He was not merely a popularizer or a bally-hoo; Leibnitz and Kant had no need of such. If then these eminent philosophers found him estimable, was he not therefore great in philosophy? In that part of philosophy which: deals with scientific method his comprehensive and systematic expositions and his daring un-Baconian generalizations have earned him a high place.
  4. ^ Hochberg, Herbert (Oct 1953). "The Empirical Philosophy of Roger and Francis Bacon". Philosophy of Science. 20 (4). University of Chicago Press. doi:10.1086/287284.

Remsense聊 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense: trying to form a tag team to get the edit you want is edit warring. Can you stop please? It is best to come to talk after 2 edits in most cases. I don't really understand what the problem is here. While we do need sources for Bacon's importance as founder, or father or whatever, we don't need citations for an exact wording, because wording is an editing decision. Bacon's position at the top of the family tree of what later came to be called empiricism is not really controversial and so at the very least I think a slow editing and more talk page use would have been called for here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was not the intent of what I said, but I do see how it could be interpreted that way, my apologies. My issue with the wording is it potentially implies the existence of an oft-used, incontrovertible epithet, even with no quotes. I would much prefer a wording such as "Bacon is widely considered to be one of the paramount figures in the development of empiricism." Really, I should've just changed it to that, but I did not like the sentences I attempted to write to that effect. Again, my apologies. Remsense聊 18:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing you want to do on WP is exaggerate the distance between you and another editor. If this is just about wording tweaks there have to be easier ways?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, 'twas a poor performance on my part, I try to avoid anything that looks like that. Remsense聊 18:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francis_Bacon&oldid=1212902538"