QuestionsWhat makes something right?Commanding nature by obeying her
What makes something right?Consequences

Commanding nature by obeying her

Francis Bacon 1561 · 1626Knowledge is power: observe and experiment.
See profile
What it claims

Seeking to know the causes of nature, so as to extend the power of the human race over it, is the noblest of human ambitions.

Why

Where the cause is unknown the effect cannot be produced: knowledge and power meet, and nature is commanded only by obeying her.

In short

"Commanding nature by obeying her" is an argument by Francis Bacon (Novum Organum, I, 3 and I, 129 (1620)) on the question "What makes something right?" (answer: consequences). Its claim: Seeking to know the causes of nature, so as to extend the power of the human race over it, is the noblest of human ambitions. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P4). AskPhilosophy presents 3 objections, 1 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.

Novum Organum, I, 3 and I, 129 (1620)
Valid with an implicit premise

For Bacon, knowledge and power go together: we produce an effect only if we know its cause. To "obey" nature is to learn its laws; that is how we can then make use of them. Printing, gunpowder and the compass changed the face of the world more than any empire. Bacon draws a moral judgement from this: seeking such knowledge is the noblest of ambitions, because its benefits go to the whole human race, forever, without harming anyone. Classification: the argument judges an action by the amount of good it produces for all, hence the consequences camp; this does not make Bacon a "utilitarian" before his time, his ethics remain Christian.

P1Human knowledge and human power meet in one: where the cause is not known, the effect cannot be produced. Nature can only be commanded by obeying her, that is, by knowing her laws.
P2The benefits of this power, inventions, can extend to the whole human race and last forever, whereas political benefits stay limited to a few places and a few ages.
P3Inventions do good without causing harm or sorrow to anyone. If they are abused, the fault lies with the use, as with all goods.
P4 · implicit premiseAn undertaking is all the nobler for doing good to more people, for longer, and with less harm.
Therefore seeking to know the causes of nature, so as to extend the power of the human race over it, is the noblest of human ambitions.

click a premise to reject it

If you accept every premise, logic forces you to accept the conclusion. So the debate is about the premises.
Checked by a logic solver: the premises cannot all be true while the conclusion is false.
Without the implicit premise: Without P4, the computer finds a case where knowledge gives power, its benefits are universal and harmless, but the nobility of an action is not measured by the good it does (for instance if only intention counts, or respect for a duty): the conclusion no longer follows.
Valid with P4, and each premise is indispensable. P4 is the principle that lets us compare actions by their effects; Bacon applies it without stating it. The most disputed point is P3: do inventions really harm no one? Bacon himself adds a nuance: the mere contemplation of things as they are is worth even more than all the fruits of inventions. So for him knowledge is not merely a tool.
Analogy. A sailor does not command the wind: he learns how it blows, then sets his sails. The better he knows the wind, the further he goes. Bacon says the same of all nature: we master it by obeying it.

Objections

3

Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.

Objection anticipated by Bacon attacks premise 3

The arts and sciences also serve wickedness and luxury: so they are not harmless.

Bacon replies
Bacon
Let no one be moved by this: the same may be said of all earthly goods, wit, courage, strength, beauty, wealth, light itself. Let the human race recover the right over nature that God gave it; sound reason and true religion will govern its use.
The debate goes on (our summary) Bacon answers with a comparison and with trust: sound reason and religion will govern the use of power. He does not say how. And among his three inventions that changed the world, one is gunpowder, which changed it "in warfare" (same aphorism).
Rousseau 1750 · attacks premise 3

It is not an accidental misuse. Everywhere and always, morals have been corrupted as the sciences and arts advanced: they are born of idleness and feed luxury. The progress of knowledge has added nothing to our real happiness.

no reply
No reply possible: objection raised in 1750, after the author's death (1626).
The debate goes on (our summary) Bacon had answered the misuse objection in advance, but not this one: Rousseau is not talking about misuse, he asserts a constant link between the progress of science and the corruption of morals. Yet Rousseau makes an exception: in the same Discourse he calls "the Verulams, the Descartes and the Newtons" the "preceptors of the human race". What he condemns is science turned into fashion and luxury, not genius.
Hans Jonas 1979 · attacks premise 3

Bacon's programme has succeeded too well. Man's power over nature has become so great that its effects, even when meant for good, threaten nature and future generations. The danger no longer comes from misuse, but from success itself. We need an ethics of responsibility that sets limits to this power.

no reply
summary: their text is not yet in our corpus
No reply possible: objection raised in 1979, after the author's death (1626).
The debate goes on (our summary) Defenders of Bacon's legacy answer that the response to the damage done by technology also requires more knowledge of causes (climate, ecosystems), which is the very idea of "commanding nature by obeying her". The debate is whether this knowledge can keep pace with the power it creates.