 In the 1900s, Thorndike [LT1;LT2] and Duhem [LSDM, III, 442] asserted that the role of observation in Bacon’s science was minimal and added nothing to his idea of a science. This modern read-back of modern experimental method ignored the importance of optics in Bacon’s model for a science (Lindberg, 1997). In recent studies (2006, 2012), Jeremiah Hackett has made explicit the manner in which Roger Bacon served as a foil for Martin Heidegger’s discussions on the originality of modern science as a sign of Modernity. For Heidegger, Bacon did not achieve the post-Galilean and Post-Cartesian discovery of a mathematical projection of nature and the consequent modern experiment. He claimed that it was false to argue, as many had done between 1880 and 1940, that Roger Bacon was the source for the post-Cartesian concept of science. One can argue for the uniqueness of modern scientific method without setting aside the longue duree that led to Kepler. One might note in passing that for Heidegger, Kepler is the true forefather of modern science. In the post-World War II years, A.C. Crombie (1953) argued that the “qualitative” aspects of modern science originated at Oxford in the early thirteenth century, specifically in the work of Grosseteste and Roger Bacon. This interpretation received a critical response from Alexander Koyré (1957) and others. Despite their significantly different philosophical committments, Heidegger and Koyré both shared Husserl’s views on the distinctiveness of the modern mathematical projection of nature as a condition for controlled experimentation. This was seen as a distinctive new phenomenon, a marker of modernity and something quite distinct from ancient and medieval science. It was argued that Crombie read back some aspects of modern scientific method into the works of Grosseteste and Bacon. However, a recent study by Mattia Mantovani has signaled clear connections between Bacon and Descartes’ approach to vision and perception (Mantovani 2020). 