Lisa commits the ‘father of’ sin

I have lived more than half of my life in Germany but one way that I maintain contact with my British roots is that I listen to two and a half hours of BBC Radio 4 on Sunday mornings. This consists mainly of the wonderful Broadcasting House followed by the Archers (no rude comments please, I grew up with the Archers). This is however preceded by one of those programmes, which are uniquely Radio 4, “A Point of View”.  This is a ten-minute slot in which well-educated and erudite experienced broadcasters reflect upon a topic of their own choice. One of these is the Renaissance historian, writer and broadcaster Lisa Jardine.

Sunday past Ms Jardine chose to muse for her ten minutes on the subject of gardening and politics and started of with the phrase, “Francis Bacon Lord Chancellor to James I and the father of modern science…” thereby, in my opinion committing a serious historical sin as well as perpetuating a seriously misleading historical myth.

I think the phrase ‘father of’ should be permanently banned from the vocabulary of all historians of science and technology. In fact I think that writers on the history of science and technology should have a special programme installed in their computers that as soon as they type the phrase ‘father of’ slowly and irrevocably dissolves their hard disk whilst uttering ear splitting screams of despair interspersed with gales of fiendish laughter. You might well ask why I cultivate such a negative attitude to what seems like a relatively harmless expression? The answer is quite simple, there is no such person as a father of any discipline or sub-discipline they do not exist and to claim that they do is a serious perversion of the history of science and technology.

There are at least five scholars to whom the phrase father of modern science has been and still is regularly applied and I could add at least three or four more who are equally deserving. For those who might be led to thinking that the problem is confined to the origins of modern science, it is not. I could name at least seven fathers of physical optic and five of modern physical optics, five fathers of physics, five of chemistry, four or five of geology and eleven of the computer. Even if one were to concede that a discipline does not possess one single father but is rather the prodigy of a collective of fathers one would be ignoring the fact that each of them is very much dependent on a whole group of not so significant figures who supplied the building blocks out of which he created his ideas. Science is a collective co-operative enterprise that progresses gradually through the contributions of whole legions of workers some more significant than others but none standing alone as ‘the father’. Let us never again have to read this ridiculous epithet.

Having dealt with Lisa’s sin what is the myth she was guilty of perpetuating? Even if the phrase father of modern science were valid, and I repeat it is not, then it is not applicable to and should not be applied to Francis Bacon.  I know that it is very common usage to describe Francis Bacon as the father, founder, originator etc., etc. of modern science but this attribution is simply false. In his philosophical work bacon developed and described a methodology for the investigation of the natural world but his methodology actually contradicts the methodology developed and practiced by people such as Galileo, Huygens and Newton who are usually credited with being the founders or progenitors of modern science. This is exactly the conflict on which I have written more than once between, as Rutherford put it so pithily, the scientists and the stamp collectors. Bacon is the original stamp collector and although his methodology has a great deal of validity in astronomy, the earth sciences and the various braches of natural history it is not the methodology, which people (falsely, there’s more than one) think of as the methodology of modern science, which is a variant of that outlined by Newton in the footnotes and appendices of his great works.

 

 

28 Comments

Filed under History of science, Myths of Science

28 responses to “Lisa commits the ‘father of’ sin

  1. Pingback: Lisa commits the ‘father of’ sin. | Whewell's Ghost

  2. I couldn’t agree more and the depressing thing is that Mme Jardine apparently knows all of this, too (I feel relatively save in making this assertion given her scholarly output and the people she collaborated with). Since I don’t think she would ever utter the incriminated sentence in the presence of her colleagues, I have to wonder whether she simply thinks that Radio 4 listeners are morons.

  3. “Science is a collective co-operative enterprise that progresses gradually through the contributions of whole legions of workers some more significant than others but none standing alone as ‘the father’. Let us never again have to read this ridiculous epithet.”

    I wish more people would be aware of this idea of continuous collective contribution rather than trying to single out great progenitors, and thereby reducing and obscuring the work of other worthwhile people. This applies to so much in the world, including science. Bravo.

  4. There’s an irony here since Bacon of all men was keen on the idea that “science is a collective co-operative enterprise that progresses gradually through the contributions of whole legions of workers…”

    Along with Alan Stewart, Lisa Jardine did write a biography of Bacon so maybe we can chalk her remarks up to marketing.

    • If Christopher Hill and Deborah Harkness hadn’t already demonstrated that Baconian science existed before Bacon we could call him “the father of collective, co-operative science”.😉

  5. Jeb

    When I was weighing up the pros and cons of post grad. study years ago My original topic was in no way related to science, the wild man’s use in foundation legends. I was just starting to be aware that the figure had a relationship with early modern science and wondered if H.O.S. was the palace to study. Spent a day in Edinburgh University library skimming through it’s H.O.S section with an increasing feeling of horror.

    Not only was it filled with Foundation legends but everything I picked up seemed to be the triumphal pageant of H.O.S written By a Mr Whig using a number of different pseudonyms but utterly unable to hide his overenthusiastic old school historical inclinations.

    I still don’t read very much secondary material and still view H.O.S as a problematic subject area despite the fact it is changing to a degree.

    Historical sin social win. It is a typical strategy that collective collaborative
    enterprises tend to engage in. The social status of scientist is tightly connected to scientific achievement. I think that’s one of a number of factors at play here. Came up in one of the few secondary books I have read dealing with Tyson as the father of primatology.

    I think I can avoid describing Bacon as the father of collective collaborative enterprises. More use to dealing with hairy things that lurk in the shrubbery in that foundational role.

  6. Michael Fugate

    “first” should also be on that list. I watched an otherwise fascinating Tedtalk by Drew Berry on simulating molecular processes in the cell, but he managed to claim both Galileo used the “first” telescope and Darwin drew the “first” phylogenetic tree. It immediately conjured up visions of you and Wilkins pounding your heads on desks.

  7. Jeb

    Genius would top out my list of things to understand. Without that generative agent I suspect the other terms become rather meaningless. The dramatic shift from its medieval to modern context is a renaissance one. Period would seem vital to understanding its modern development.

  8. Can we add Golden Age to the list too?

  9. Jeb

    self- sacrifice.

    It always happens at that bit after the boyhood deeds. He discovers he has a ‘special purpose’ and ‘gives himself over entirely to the quest for truth. Devoting the rest of his life to slaying the daemons of falsehood and restoring light to the land.

  10. darwinsbulldog

    How about how this or that having “changed the world.”

  11. Pingback: Apart from Muhammad Ali there aint no such thing as ‘The Greatest | The Renaissance Mathematicus

  12. Pingback: Unsound history | The Renaissance Mathematicus

  13. Pingback: R. G. Collingwood on Historical Practice | Darin Hayton

  14. Pingback: A revisionist historian of science on the Scientific American Guest Blog. | The Renaissance Mathematicus

  15. Pingback: Nobody invented the scientific method. | The Renaissance Mathematicus

  16. Pingback: Nobody invented the scientific method | Whewell's Ghost

  17. Pingback: Gopnik on Galileo | Darin Hayton

  18. Pingback: Shakespeare was clairvoyant. | The Renaissance Mathematicus

  19. Pingback: At least get the facts right… | Darin Hayton

  20. Pingback: A double bicentennial – Georg contra Ada – Reality contra Perception | The Renaissance Mathematicus

  21. Speaking of Lisa’s father…

  22. To Michael Weiss: We shouldn’t. That was my point. We should excuse Prof. Jardine’s inclination given her own illustrious father.

  23. Pingback: Founders of science? | The Renaissance Mathematicus

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s