In order to fully understand Francis Bacon’s most notable accomplishment to philosophy, we must first take a deep dive into the history of philosophy and understand the method of reasoning that Bacon is challenging and, in his opinion, improving upon. It just so happens that the method of reasoning Bacon has put to question was developed by, who some regard as, the most famous philosopher of all time. That is, Aristotle. 

     Around 400 BC in ancient Macedonia, Aristotle outlined a method of reasoning that would later be called the deductive method. This method, he explained would guarantee certain conclusions that could be drawn from a particular set of premises. The  way in which this worked was simple. Before providing an example, however, it is worth clarifying the overarching structure of Aristotle’s argument first. Today, this structure can be easily identified by the more common phrase, syllogism. (i.e., Opening with a major or general premise, which is then further qualified by a minor or particular premise, and finally leading to a certain conclusion). Notably, both the major and minor premises are drawn from generalities that, once focused, would direct the argument to a very specific and intentional conclusion. The most famous example that Aristotle uses to express his deductive method of reasoning is as follows: (Major Premise) All men are mortal, (Minor Premise) Socrates is a man, (Certain Conclusion) therefore, Socrates is a mortal. 

     Interestingly enough, the most famous example of deductive reasoning does not come to us by way of Aristotle at all. Rather, it comes to us through our old pal Descartes who coined the infamous cogito argument. In this example Descartes claims that: All thinking things must exist, and, because he is a thinking thing, he must therefore exist. For Francis Bacon though, this deductive method of reasoning was not enough. In fact, Bacon even went so far as to liken these “notions of scholastic philosophers,” to the “vain” and “blind experiments of the alchemist,” (novum organum). More specifically though, Bacon recognized that these syllogisms could be incorrect and misleading. To be sure, let us assume, as a major premise, that all grass is green. Now, as a minor premise, let us also say that Tommy the Turtle is green. Using Aristotle’s deductive method of reasoning, this would then lead us to conclude that Tommy the Turtle is, in fact, grass. A statement that, obviously, could not be more wrong. Put a slightly different way, even though both a major and minor premise can be true, they can also lead to an outcome that is obviously false. In conjunction with these problematic outcomes, Bacon’s adamant intent to advance science through observational data gave rise to what we now know today as the inductive method of reasoning. 

     Unlike deductive reasoning, which, as I mentioned above, sets out to establish claims of absolute certainty, Bacon’s inductive method attempts instead to assert probabilistic conclusions that are drawn from general observations. For example, if my mailman waives to me every day he drops off my mail, I can assume, with a reasonable amount of certainty, that the next time my mailman drops off my mail, he will waive to me. Or again, If every dog I have ever seen barks, I could conclude that all dogs bark. Of course there are exceptions to these conclusions that could render them false. What if the mailman hurt his arm and was not able to waive but smiled instead, or the next dog I encountered had some strange respiratory condition or laryngeal disease that made it impossible for it to bark. Both alternate sets of circumstances would lead to conclusions that are, no doubt, flawed. Yet and Still, Bacon thought that the probability with which these conclusions were found to be true outweighed the instances where some alternate conclusion persisted. Indeed, Bacon saw this new method of seeking truth as the only true method. 

     In an effort to delineate this new method to others, Bacon went on record to illustrate how it could be employed. In his illustration, Bacon outlines a table with specific columns (i.e., Presences, Absences, and Degrees). It is from these categories that Bacon’s probabilistic conclusions could then be drawn. Although this method might seem a bit rudimentary, its functionality is quite impressive. Indeed, it is this very concept that anchors the most basic principles of today’s scientific method. The two are nearly impossible to separate.

Setting aside Bacon’s motivation for implementing this new method of reasoning (for the public good), I cannot think of a more appropriate and practical real world application than articulating probable conclusions that are drawn from the observations and experiences of those that are observing and experiencing. After all, this is the method that each of us employ every single day while navigating the world around us. Even beyond this, many problems we seek answers to cannot be answered conclusively. Are we then expected to languish in uncertainty because we are unable to reach some definite conclusion? Of course not! In these circumstances it seems necessary to forge ahead toward a likely outcome.