Bacon’s “The Four Idols” and Gould’s “Nonmoral Nature”, Essay Example

Introduction

Francis Bacon and Stephen Jay Gould share much in their perspectives of the natural world. In particular, both were concerned with objective observation and description of the natural world and argued that human biases needed to be removed from scientific thought. Much of how we understand our world relies upon how well we understand the limits of what we know and what we can know. This essay will consider how each of them viewed the natural world, as defined by their two essays, Bacon’s “The Four Idols” and Gould’s “Nonmoral Nature.”

Bacon’s View of Scientific Observation

In “The Four Idols” Bacon identifies four classes of error that philosophers and naturalists consistently fell prey to in his era, the very beginning of the Enlightenment.  This essay is one that helped define the scientific method and contributed substantially to modern scientific thought.

The first error, the “Idols of the Tribe,” notes that human perception is generally quite fallible.  This concept really takes some humility on part of the scientist, but the reality is ever person is different. Perhaps, nowhere is that more salient than in our vision. For example, if two people are looking at the same object, say a heavenly body through a telescope, their impressions of the object is necessarily different based on one simple fact. No two sets of eyes are shaped exactly the same. What researchers have found is that the magnification produced by telescope lenses actually not only magnifies the target of the telescope but also the differences produced by variation in shapes of eyes.

Second error, the “Idols of the Cave,” notes that individual humans are prey to their personal biases, which distort their personal perceptions of the world.  Confirmation bias has traditionally banned the expansion of human knowledge.  People do not naturally enjoy being wrong, but by being proven to be wrong is the only way a theory can improve.  Because our perceptions are not to be trusted, whatever we think about reality is necessarily erroneous at least in part.  Take the study of astronomy.  Our understanding of the known universe has only progressed because older theories were superseded by newer ones.  For example, people used to think Earth was center of the universe. Then, they figured out that Earth revolves around the Sun.  Now, we realize we are nowhere near the center of our own galaxy, let alone the Universe.

The third error, the “Idols of the Marketplace,” notes that human communications in imprecise and ambiguous words is by its very nature imprecise and ambiguous.  No matter what words (or any system of symbols, even math and logic) we use to describe a given phenomenon, it will necessarily fall short of the reality, because if we could describe the reality perfectly our description would become the reality.

The final error, the “Idols of the Theater,” notes that errors in philosophy and dogma also distort the understanding of observations of the natural world.  This still speaks to the poverty of human observation.  Whatever we see must be consolidated into the context of what we have previously known.  The problem is that if we attach ourselves too strongly to what we believe to be true, we have no avenue of improving our knowledge base. These four errors combine to interfere greatly with true comprehension of the nature of the world around us.

Bacon calls for changes to how we should observe nature to try to overcome these errors. He calls for careful observations of nature using the most objective methods possible to overcome sensory distortions.  Individual biases should be overcome by considering both the holistic perception of the natural world and the analytic detail of the substructure of the natural systems. In other words, the natural world should be analyzed both in the large scale and the small scale rather than considering only one aspect.  Communications errors can be overcome through careful definition of terms up front, as opposed to assuming that others understand the precise meaning intended.  Finally, philosophical dogmas, and particularly religion and superstition, need to be guarded against and set aside.  Dogma also includes those who formulate a theory and then cling to it as “truth” by coercing all data to fit that theoretical model.  Although Bacon’s essay is not a complete description of the modern empirical method, these four concepts form the basis for the ideal process that science should follow.

Gould’s View of Scientific Observation

Stephen Jay Gould’s essay, “Nonmoral Nature,” focuses primarily in on the issue raised by the fourth error that Bacon notes, that of allowing prior philosophy, religion, and dogmatic theories to distort observations and understanding.  In this case, Gould focuses in on a class of predatory wasps which parasitize caterpillars, in some cases performing “torturous” actions by literally eating the caterpillar prey alive from the inside out—and doing so in such a way as to keep the caterpillar alive as long as possible, thus “inflicting maximum torture” on the prey.

Yet Gould points out that this interpretation of the wasps’ actions is the result of applying human standards of right and wrong to wasps.  By allowing the dogma of religion to color the interpretation of the natural world, we allow distortions and misinterpretations to creep into the analysis of the natural world.  Furthermore, such interpretations allow religion—which Gould equates with superstition—to bias our knowledge. Gould explicitly states that religion, superstition, and personal dogma have no place in scientific thought.  Judging from the impact organized religion had on limiting human understand in Europe, it is understandable that Gould would resist the encroachment of religious influence on the scientific enterprise, but to be fair, this seems originate from his own dogmas.  There will always be certain logical limits to human understanding. Take the Big Bang Theory for example. Theorists have implemented a regression model of the universe based on empirical evidence that suggest the Universe was once completely singular. That is, everything in the universe was contained in an infinitely small space.  Density is a measure of the amount of matter in a given space.  So, given an infinitely small space, we can reasonable substitute the zero for infinitely small.  The formula to calculate density is mass over volume, or:

D = m/v

If volume is zero, any mass would make density approach infinity. That is, it is a division by zero problem.  Division by zero happens to be one of the theoretical limits of mathematics.  The result of any division by zero is undefined, or in the vernacular, unknowable by our understanding.

Here, it is not unreasonable to adopt an attitude that religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Although Creationist and Big Bang theorists accept neither the claim of the other, the origin of the Universe cannot be sufficiently explained by either party even though it is the paramount question in both viewpoints. In either camp, we find people who are so dogmatic about their point of view that it seems more of an emotional attachment rather than a logic argument.  Because if it really is a logical argument, either must agree that our understanding is necessarily limited. In other words, although we hope the debate relevant answers to the central question, the fact is that the central question itself may not be fathomable by any person.

That being said, it is clear there is room for both faith and science to exist simultaneously in a single system of knowledge.  Nevertheless, Gould’s argument is redeemable at least in part.  As far as the Universe is knowable, we should not substitute answers of faith for questions of empiricism.  Whenever we can we should implement a scientific understanding of reality recognizing that there are logical limits to what we can know, and in those places, we may implement an attitude of faith, but to implement faith where science is sufficient to explain observations is a misuse of our intelligence.  Still, given the historical experiences men of knowledge encountered in Europe with respect to organized religion, it is understandable that Gould would fear such encroachment of the methods of science.

Conclusions

Bacon lived in an era in which religion was giving way to science as the dominant philosophy. Many even claim that Bacon was one of the key founders of that movement away from religion and toward modern scientific thought. As noted earlier, he clearly believed that religious dogma must not stand in the way of observation and analysis of the natural world.  He and Gould certainly agree on that point.  At the same time, Bacon was a man who lived in an era of strong religious faith.  He did not deny the importance of religion, but only insisted that religious dogma (or philosophical dogma) must not distort perceptions of the world.  Bacon argues that natural philosophy (i.e., science) and religion are separate and should not be mixed; he explicitly says one key form of the error of dogma is to “mix…philosophy with theology and tradition” (Bacon, p. 592, para. 32). It is not that religion and faith is wrong or bad, but instead that mixing religious dogma with natural philosophy is the error.

In contrast, Gould’s essay takes a more anti-religion tone than Bacon.  Gould is quite scathing toward those who bring religious beliefs to their study of the natural world.  He claims that nature itself is completely amoral, and thus outside of religious interpretations.  He also cites Darwin’s perspective on the “compatibility, through lack of contact, between science and true religion” (Gould, p. 648, para. 29).

While Bacon may not be as adamant in his views on religion as Gould, both men espoused the separation of religion and science.  Bacon may have perceived the predatory wasp as “evil” but, after a conversation with Gould, it seems likely that the two would be in agreement that the natural world “just plain happens” (Gould, p. 647, para. 28).  Although science and faith are not necessarily mutually exclusive, it is necessary that either point of view reconcile itself with the other using the understanding with which we are imbued to the best of our ability.

References

Bacon, F. “The Four Idols” In A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers, 8^th Edition, Lee A. Jacobus, Ed. Boston, 2010,  MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s. pp. 579-595. Print.

Gould, S. J. “Nonmoral Nature” In A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers, 8^th Edition, Lee A. Jacobus, Ed. Boston, 2010,  MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s. pp. 635-649. Print.