[4] Childrey adopted firmly the stance proposed by Francis Bacon, that the collection of very full sets of data should precede the formulation of hypotheses.
[6] It has been argued, however, that when with Thomas Sprat he advocated more attention to phenomena visible in the skies ("meteors", in the term used at the time), he was crossing a line drawn by Bacon that excluded "prodigious" observations.
[8] Britannica Baconica mentioned causal explanations of prodigies on its title page, and Childrey took a generally cessationist line.
[10] He published two short astrological works:[4] In the Indago Astrologica Childrey, though in other ways a convinced Baconian, argued that Bacon's geocentric model of the cosmos was incorrect.
[11] Subsequently, he was associated with a group who wished to reform astrology along lines (the heliocentric model and the Baconian method) that would make it compatible with contemporary natural philosophy.
[15] The astrological studies were a dead end, but Childrey's Baconian ephemeris was innovative; and he was led into meteorology, supporting an old theory of a 35-year weather cycle.
These led him, around 1669, to contest the views of John Wallis and Samuel Colepresse of Plymouth, on the occurrence of the highest tides in February and November; he attributed their findings mainly to winds.
[27] The debate arising, on spring tides, was published in the Transactions of the Royal Society, after Childrey had communicated with Seth Ward.
The oceanographer George Deacon later criticised Wallis's attitude, and Childrey's view is thought to be closer to the truth.