Rene Descartes: A Huge Figure In Early Science And Philosophy

887 Words4 Pages

Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes are huge figures in early science and philosophy. Bacon is considered the father of empiricism, or the theory that knowledge comes solely from human sensory experiences; and Descartes practice strict rationalism. Combined, these two approaches form the modern scientific method. These contemporaries published numerous works on a variety of topics, from moral philosophy to natural science. One subject they covered during their careers is the ideal method for humanity to attain knowledge. Bacon and Descartes begin their arguments with similar beliefs but go on to make clear in their writings that they have very different ideas of what that ideal method looks like. Naturally, there are also various strengths …show more content…

After rejecting “the old ways,” is it better to see the world and make theories regarding it via observation or deduction? Both have strong arguments for their cases. Let us begin by examining Bacon. One of his biggest strengths is his acknowledgement of the fallibilities of human sensory and processing mechanisms when he writes about the Idols of the Mind. Human nature itself, personal bias, the opinions of other people, and a surrounding culture cloud sensory input and give people false notions. Yet Bacon believes this nature can be altered to create the most understanding of the world possible for people. As he says, “I also assert that not much can be known in nature by the way which is now in use. But then they go on to destroy the authority of the senses and understanding; whereas I proceed to devise and supply helps for the same” (Matthews, 48). His argument for using experiments to support philosophy is a good middle-ground approach. Descartes, by contrast, does not discuss these fallibilities of thought and assumes his thoughts are not flawed, perhaps due to his reliance on math and physics. This is a weakness in his arguments. However, he also has a stronger logical basis for his claims. Deductive reasoning has survived so long in geometry classrooms and philosophical discussions for a reason: it is very difficult to