A critical anaysis of Francis Bacon's "novum organum" with examples from the history of science

The aim of this study is to examine the three basic claims put forth by Francis Bacon in his "Novum Organum" and to suggest a historical assessment that Bacon was not right in his claims. Bacon criticized Aristotle's method; he argued that the method he advocated was "one" and claimed that his method would replace the traditional method. In this study, it is shown that this claim is invalid by giving examples to the criticisms of Aristotle's method from the works of some thinkers who lived before Bacon. Secondly, Bacon argues that there are no actual experiments and observations in the scientific studies put forth in the period before him. Examples of experiments and observations from the history of science and astronomy were given in order to challenge Bacon's claim, which argued that there was no scientific study "based on a practitioner, experimental and observational method" before the "new understanding of science". When the selected examples are examined carefully, it will be seen that these examples of experiments and observations are also valuable in terms of modern science. Finally, Bacon argues that the method he proposed in "Novum Organum" is a method that will be accepted and used by everyone in scientific studies. Bacon's claim will be challenged by exemplifying the use of the idealization method, one of the symbols of modern science.