absurd to be entertained,--but so completely does it exist at the bottom
of most men's minds, that this has been a matter of observation with me
for many years past. There are many men who, though knowing absolutely
nothing of the subject with which they may be dealing, wish,
nevertheless, to damage the author of some view with which they think
fit to disagree. What they do, then, is not to go and learn something
about the subject, which one would naturally think the best way of
fairly dealing with it; but they abuse the originator of the view they
question, in a general manner, and wind up by saying that, "After all,
you know, the principles and method of this author are totally opposed
to the canons of the Baconian philosophy." Then everybody applauds, as
a matter of course, and agrees that it must be so. But if you were to
stop them all in the middle of their applause, you would probably find
that neither the speaker nor his applauders could tell you how or in
what way it was so; neither the one nor the other having the slightest
idea of what they mean when they speak of the "Baconian philosophy."

You will understand, I hope, that I have not the slightest desire to
join in the outcry against either the morals, the intellect, or the
great genius of Lord Chancellor Bacon. He was undoubtedly a very great
man, let people say what they will of him; but notwithstanding all that
he did for philosophy, it would be entirely wrong to suppose that the
methods of modern scientific inquiry originated with him, or with his
age; they originated with the first man, whoever he was; and indeed
existed long before him, for many of the essential processes of
reasoning are exerted by the higher order of brutes as completely and
effectively as by ourselves. We see in many of the brute creation the
exercise of one, at least, of the same powers of reasoning as that
which we ourselves employ.