| Taken as a whole, Bacon's critique | comes to this: from a formal point of | view, Aristotle's syllogism is | essentially a logic for deductive | reasoning, which goes from the | principles to the consequences, from | the premises to the conclusions. And, | of course, in this kind of reasoning, | the truth of the conclusions is | necessarily derived from the truth of | the premises, so that knowledge will | start with primary truths that are | supposed to be necessary and | universal, that is, essential. Now, | Bacon asks, how does the mind acquire | the knowledge of these primary | truths, since, as it is allowed by | Aristotle himself, all knowledge | starts with experience, which | experience is always contingent and | particular? How does the mind go from | the empirical knowledge of facts or | sensible effects (phenomena) to the | knowledge of the very nature of | things? The formal necessity of the | syllogism (or deductive reasoning) | makes the old logic forget the pre- | judicial question of how we set up | first principles. Therefore, any | attempt to define the valid form of | theories must go through the inquiry | upon how we establish truth. | | From this general critique, it is | easy to understand Bacon's various | comments on the old organon. First, | since such a logic induces a kind of | double start, the empirical one and