We have but one simple method of delivering our sentiments, namely, we must bring men to particulars and their regular series and order, and they must for a while renounce their notions, and begin to form an acquaintance with things. [Translated from Francis Bacon, Novum organum, 1620]1
Truth, he [Bacon] wrote, was not the daughter of Authority, but of Time. [The Cambridge modern history, 1902]2
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Translated from BaconF., Novum organum (London, 1620), Book I, aphorism 36.
2.
PayneE. J., “The New World”, in The Cambridge modern history, i (Cambridge, 1902), 37–66, p. 65, in a passage on “The New Philosophy”.
3.
Cf. ForesM., “A Cambridge view of modernity”, Journal of historical sociology, v (1992), 209–33, pp. 209–14.
4.
“… no revolution has been as dramatically revolutionary as the Industrial Revolution — except perhaps the Neolithic Revolution.” CipollaC. M., “The Industrial Revolution”, in The Fontana economic history of Europe, iii (London 1973), 7–21, p. 7; NorthD. C., Structure and change in economic history (New York, 1981), chap. 7. esp. p. 73.
5.
GimpelJ., The medieval machine: The industrial revolution of the Middle Ages (London, 1976), esp. p. 1.
6.
WestfallR. S., Never at rest (Cambridge, 1980), 62.
7.
Concerning a “leap forward into a completely new world”, see Cipolla, op. cit. (ref. 4), 16.
8.
MarxK., Das Kapital, i (Hamburg, 1867), Penguin edn, 545, 548, also title of chap. 15.
9.
LandesD. S., “Technological change and development in Western Europe, 1750–1914”, in The Cambridge economic history of Europe, vi (Cambridge, 1965), 274–601, p. 549.
10.
Cipolla, op. cit. (ref. 4), 18.
11.
North, op. cit. (ref. 4), chap. 13, esp. p. 171. “It was growth in the stock of knowledge which made possible the Second Economic Revolution”, ibid., 209.
12.
E.g., LaytonE., “Scientific technology, 1845–1900”, Technology and culture, xx (1979), 64–89.
13.
BellD., The coming of post-industrial society (London, 1974); OECD, Report on economic analyses of information activities (Paris, 1980); TurkleS., The second self: Computers and the human spirit (London, 1984), 11, also chap. 1; Time, 3 January 1983, cover story, esp. pp. 3, 8.
Translated from BaconF., Of the proficience and advancement of learning (London, 1605), Book II, chap. 1.
16.
CrombieA. C. and HoskinM. A., “The scientific movement and its influence 1610–50”, in The new Cambridge modern history, iv (Cambridge, 1970), 132–68, p. 133, in a discussion of the legacy of Galileo, Bacon and others.
17.
AustenJ., Pride and prejudice (London, 1813), chap. 3.
18.
Cf. the theme about a covert eschatology in the pages of the Cambridge History, in ForesM., “Newton on a horse”, History of science, xxiii (1985), 351–78, pp. 355, 373–4.
19.
WhiteheadA. N., Science and the modern world (Cambridge, 1926), 20–24.
20.
CollingwoodR. G., The idea of history (Oxford, 1946); OUP paperback edn, 269.
21.
Ibid.
22.
Quoted by PittengerN., Alfred North Whitehead (London, 1969), 17.
23.
Collingwood, op. cit. (ref. 20), 269.
24.
Translated from Aristotle's Physics, Book I, para. 1.
25.
Following Aristotle's own contention. Cf. GuthrieW. K. C., A history of Greek philosophy, vi (Cambridge, 1981), 197.
26.
North, op. cit. (ref. 4), 73.
27.
For Marx's attempt to prove that tools are not really machines, see op. cit. (ref. 8), at the start of chap. 15 on machinery.
28.
Newton, for instance, purposely did not try to answer the question, “What is gravity?”.
29.
Inner London Educational Authority teaching materials.
30.
E.g., McLuhanM. and FioreQ., The medium is the massage (Harmondsworth, 1967).
31.
HampsonN., The enlightenment (London, 1968); Penguin edn, 37, 78.
32.
HeimannP. M., “The scientific revolutions”, in The new Cambridge modern history, xiii (Cambridge, 1979), 248–70, p. 249.
33.
For Homo as a converter, see Marx, op. cit. (ref. 8), 287, and Section 4 of the present paper.
34.
E.g., BrownD. and HarrisonM. J., A sociology of industrialisation (London, 1978), chap. 3.
35.
Collingwood, op. cit. (ref. 20), 81–85.
36.
Ibid., 4, 5, 42.
37.
Ibid., 41, 42.
38.
Cf. the criticism of the “the promise of universalism”, in Fores, “Cambridge view” (ref. 3), 223–9.
39.
MumfordL., The transformations of man (New York, 1956); Torchbook edn, 98, 99.
40.
CobbanA., “The enlightenment”, in The new Cambridge modern history, vii (Cambridge, 1957), 85–112, p. 87–88.
41.
Cf. the theme of “the theatre of the bourgeoisie”, at Fores, “Newton” (ref. 18), 368–70.
42.
HughesT. P., “The order of the technological world”, History of technology, v (1980), 1–16, p. 13.
43.
Marx, op. cit. (ref. 8), 506–8, 544–6.
44.
Ibid., 457–8, 590.
45.
Ibid., 547–9.
46.
For a fuller critique of Marx's position, see ForesM.GloverI. and LawrenceP., “Professionalism and rationality”, Sociology, xxv (1991), 79–100.
47.
Bacon, op. cit. (ref. 1), Book II, aphorism 41, regarding “the instances of the road”.
48.
Translated from Aristotle's Organon, para. 1.
49.
GellnerE., Plough, sword and book (London, 1988), 17–18.
50.
DerryT. K. and WilliamsT. I., A short history of technology (Oxford, 1960), 259. Cf. my piece (ref. 18), 372, on this book's absurd treatment of the Second Industrial Revolution.
51.
ShakespeareW., Hamlet, Act III, scene i.
52.
Bacon, op. cit. (ref. 1), Book II, aphorism 41.
53.
Cf. DruckerP., The age of discontinuity (London, 1969), chap. 12. Drucker's Revolution was in knowledge-working too in “The technological revolution: Notes on the relationship of technology, science, and culture”, Technology and culture, ii (1961), 342–51, esp. p. 346.
Turkle, op. cit.(ref. 13), 3, 6, 11, 12, 319. Computers “provoke us to think about who we are”, ibid., 320.
60.
Ibid., 1, 5, 15, 16, 285.
61.
Ibid., 1, 10.
62.
ibid., 7.
63.
ibid., 15.
64.
ibid., 323.
65.
WestJ. F., The great intellectual revolution (London, 1965), 87; Cobban, op. cit. (ref. 40), 85; WestfallR. S., Science and religion in seventeenth-century England (New Haven, 1958), 2.
66.
Bacon, op. cit. (ref. 1), Book I, aphorism 45.
67.
Ibid., Book I, aphorism 84.
68.
Whitehead, op. cit. (ref. 19), 79.
69.
Bacon, op. cit. (ref. 15), Book II, chap. 1.
70.
In the terms of my earlier piece (ref. 18), we have only seen plays put on in “the theatre of the bourgeoisie”.
