Skip to main content
History of Science and Mathematics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • $\begingroup$ see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History $\endgroup$
    – Peter M. - stands for Monica
    Commented Oct 10, 2016 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ @PeterMasiar - in this way, scientific method existed "from the beginning" and we loose any benefit from using the locution in order to understand what is peculiar aboit science. Have you ever tried to read Parmenides poem ? See here for text and translation; if you really think that it can be "similar" to Newton's Principia... $\endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Commented Oct 10, 2016 at 14:39
  • $\begingroup$ What does not "fit well" about Bacon - IMO - is that he was a "big theorist" (and rethorist) of new science, but he was not a scientist at all. There is not a single statement in his works with "scientific value" : nor math, nor experiments,... nothing at all. But his role was paramount indeed. $\endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Commented Oct 10, 2016 at 14:41
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Mauro ALLEGRANZA: yes you are right. He was a philosopher, not a scientist. But the question was "articulating the scientific method", and this he did, indeed. Some scientists of that time, like Kepler and Galileo and others practiced the method, without thinking much about general formulation. $\endgroup$
    – Alexandre Eremenko
    Commented Oct 10, 2016 at 20:09
  • $\begingroup$ Partially agreed ... "the method" is not what we can find in the philosophical treatises about method but what is "practiced" in the paradigmatic works, like Newton's Principia. $\endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Commented Oct 11, 2016 at 5:53