Talk:Scientific Revolution

Untitled

Note to the editors: You can time-stamp your posts anonymously with 5 tildes, thus 10:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC).

scientific revolution

The event which many historians of science call the scientific revolution can be dated roughly as having begun in 1543, the year in which Nicolaus Copernicus published his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) and Andreas Vesalius published his De humani corporis fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human body). As with many historical demarcations, historians of science disagree about its boundaries. Although the period is commonly dated to the 16th and 17th centuries, some see elements contributing to the revolution as early as the middle ages,[1] and finding its last stages in chemistry and biology in the 18th and 19th centuries.[2] There is general agreement, however, that the intervening period saw a fundamental transformation in scientific ideas in physics, astronomy, and biology, in institutions supporting scientific investigation, and in the more widely held picture of the universe. As a result, the scientific revolution is commonly viewed as a foundation and origin of modern science.[3] The "Continuity Thesis" is the opposing view that there was no radical discontinuity between the development of science in the Middle Ages and later developments in the Renaissance and early modern period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gon56 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Pierre Duhem thought "1277" was the birth year of Science. Student7 (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Vesalius, what's he doing here?

Without authoritative references the mention of Vesalius is out of place in the lead: there is apparently some confusion between the Scientific Revolution as the beginning of the Modern times and a scientific revolution/ paradigm shift in a particular discipline (medicine). There is perhaps an analogy between Vesalius and Copernic but there is no comparison in scale. And the year 1543 is plainly a coincidence which does not need to be emaphasized. Copernic's book as Owen Gingerich has famously proved was "The Book Nobody Read". So I strongly suggest to delete the whole sentence. 91.92.179.172 (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The critical change in thinking from 16th to 17th century opening the door to methodological science was the abandonment of (church-backed) apriorism as discredited on several fronts (e.g. Reformation, conflict with experience, discoveries overseas) and replacement with empiricism, and the crucial factor in this change was the revival of (Greek) skepticism from 1562 onwards. Scholasticism says there are higher truths we can attain via reason and/or revelation; skepticism says there aren't higher truths, we can only acquire knowledge through sense and since the world is in permanent flux there are no unchanging truths. Francisco Sanches (in That Nothing is Known) accepts this and proposes advancing wisdom through tentative and reviewable observation-based ideas - science in a nutshell. I don't say that Sanches single-handedly made science possible, only that the suddenness of the emergence of investigative, experimental science is explained by the dethronement of apriorism by skepticism in the close of the C16th, specifically by the publication of Sextus Empiricus in 1562.Pertin1x (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Greek skepticism was skeptical of higher truths, lower truths, and every truth in between—including the empirical variety. Only recently it's come to mean one doesn't believe in ghosts.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, but mitigated skepticism was new idea by Sanches as far as I know.Pertin1x (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Inadequate (self-contradictory) formulation

"Some continuity theorists point to earlier intellectual revolutions occurring in the Middle Ages, usually referring to either a European "Renaissance of the 12th century"[6] or a medieval "Muslim scientific revolution",[9][10][11] as a sign of continuity."

This seems pure nonsense : either a revolution is advocated, or it is continuity : it clearly cannot be both ! 12th century "Renaissance" is clearly an accepted notion in Europe, though underlooked previously because the tools and methods invented concerned working plain people (peasants) and did not touch leisure classes like the "real" Renaissance. 82.226.27.88 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on the Renaissance of the 12th century misses the point that ever since it's formulation/identification by Charles Homer Haskins, the concept has had a strong intellectual focus. It very much concerns the activities within the Cathedral schools and the Platonism associated with the so-called School of Chartres.

The existence of an intellectual Renaissance in the twelfth century in no way undermines the notion of a Scientific revolution. Every revolutionary change builds on historical antecedents. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

"Bernel" seems to be a mistake for "Bernal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.211.191 (talk) Bernal's name is now spelled correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.253.153 (talk)

Peer-review requested...

in a sister article of this one.

Please see my "big question" here: Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1.

If you post something, do it here.

Thanks a lot!

Cesar Tort 00:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

françois viète

go and read François Viète. He has his place between Copernic and Descartes. If you'r not agree, explain me why, please. This man gave us the symbolic notation of modern algebra. What should we do without it ?Jean de Parthenay (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is about whether the article Scientific Revolution should be moved to Scientific revolution. Folowing the discussion the move was made on 27 July 2009.

Scientific Revolution → Scientific revolution — Not a proper noun. — Jacob Lundberg (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, This was moved to the current name because of a similarity to Industrial Revolution referring to a specific time period. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• It is a proper noun, and the capitalisation should be corrected in the text. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "It is a proper noun" is, in this context, devoid of semantic content. A "proper noun" simply means one which is conventionally capitalised, so that, for example, "Tuesday" is a proper noun, whereas the equivalent French "mardi" isn't. Therefore to say "this should be capitalised because it is a proper noun" amounts to "this should be capitalised because it should be capitalised".
    • The definition of proper noun is not that it's conventionally capitalized. Proper nouns are nouns that refer to "unique" entities, as opposed to common nouns that describe a class of entities. In German, for example, both proper and common nouns are always capitalized. Jafeluv (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, the situation in German is different (as it was in 17th century English), and "conventionally capitalized noun" cannot be regarded as a universally applicable definition of "proper noun". However, the point really was that what is called a "proper" noun is not an absolute, but is rather defined by convention. As far as English is concerned, the concept "proper noun" has the same extension as "conventionally capitalized noun", and the fact that the same is not so in all languages is irrelevant. The example of "Tuesday" was intended simply to illustrate the fact that the concept of "proper noun" is defined by convention rather than by a logical principle, so that the extension of the term may vary depending on what convention one follows, as it does between French and English. Another example I could have taken is "French", which is regarded as a proper noun in English, whereas the equivalent in French is regarded as a common noun. There is a lot more that could be said about this concept, which is far more complex than it looks at first glance, but it is already distinctly off topic for this page. In this case the point I was trying to make was really that those of us who regard "scientific revolution" as a proper noun will probably want it capitalized, while those of us who don't won't, so that saying that it is or is not a proper noun does not solve anything. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral, a quick scouring of sources on the revolution show conflicting results; some use the proper noun context and others do not. Whatever decision is made, I think we should alter the intro. to reflect both usages, with the ultimate article namesake taking precedence. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Unless a usage is notable, there is no need to document it - there is no need to document every misspelling and miss-usage we can find on the web. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Proposed solution: I've wondered about this myself. It is premature to be voting. Rather than basing the decision on our own conclusions and opinions, we should follow the usage in the majority of the most reliable sources: current encyclopedias and other leading reference works. If usage in the most reliable sources is close to even, I suggest not capitalizing the term for two reasons:

1. There is a long term trend in the English language to reduce capitalization of such "made up" proper nouns.
2. British English tends to capitalize less than American English. WP:ENGVAR recommends choosing spellings and usages that are accepted in all the national varieties of English.

As a beginning for the research, I made a new subsection below where we can record what we find. Finell (Talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support; it is usual in many Wikipedia projects to prefer lower case, where usage is varied. We don't need to use capitals to call out a keyword; we have wikilinks for that. --Una Smith (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has its own house style, and it is a mistake to suggest following the majority of existing encyclopedias, as has been done above. Wikipedia policy is unambiguous here: the naming conventions policy says Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is almost always capitalized in English. It is quite clear that the expression is not almost always capitalized: otherwise this discussion would not be taking place. It follows that the article must be renamed. (The brief list below begins to suggest that the majority usage supports this anyway, but even if it didn't we should follow Wikipedia policy). JamesBWatson (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per JamesBWatson above and #Usage in reliable sources below. Jafeluv (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage in reliable sources

The following sources use Scientific Revolution

The following sources use scientific revolution

• Encyclopaedia Britannica (2002 CD-ROM and online editions) Finell (Talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (search results for "scientific revolution"): Lower case is the majority usage; there is some variation among the several articles, by different authors, that use the term. Finell (Talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Scientific Revolution" in Encarta: Uses lower case throughout the body of the article. Finell (Talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World: Capitalized in the article title, uncapitalized in running text. Jafeluv (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• A Dictionary of British History: Uncapitalized. Jafeluv (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This change may be causing confusion

As I suggested in the discussion below, the recent lower casing of the article title may have led to confusion here between the Scientific Revolution as a specific historical period and the general concept of a scientific revolution as discussed by Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

I think the capitalization made a useful distinction and should be restored. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This may have been a contributory factor, but I don't see that it can have been a major cause of misunderstanding. Anyone who has read the first sentence of the lead can see that the article is about a specific historic period. just looking at the title, however, it is easy to see how it could be taken as a general term. It is not obvious to me, however, that this would be much less so if the title were capitalised. It seems to me that it the article title were "The scientific revolution" then it would be 100% clear from a first glance that it refers to a specific event. Generally Wikipedia does not use definite articles at the start of article titles, but there is provision for exceptions, and I think there is a case for making one here. WP:THE gives "If a word without a definite article would have a general meaning, while the same word has a specific and identifiable meaning ...", which, it seems to me, clearly applies here. However, it goes on to specify "...if there is justification to have separate articles for both meanings". I think there is such justification, if someone with enough relevant knowledge is prepared to write an article on the general concept. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientific revolution in the modern period ?

Do we have this stage in the article?--Tranletuhan (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the article is concerned with the Scientific Revolution as a specific historical transformation that began "in 1543 and continued through the late 17th century," it wouldn't really be appropriate to extend it into the modern period.

I suspect you may be thinking of scientific revolutions in the generic sense, as discussed by Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

I wonder if the recent lower casing of the article title has led to confusion here between the Scientific Revolution as a specific historical period and the general concept of a scientific revolution. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Revolution & alchemy/chemistry?

current This period saw a fundamental transformation in scientific ideas across physics, astronomy, and biology, in institutions supporting scientific investigation, and in the more widely held picture of the universe.

I think what is missing here is alchemy - chemistry?

Up to the 16th century, alchemy was considered serious science in Europe; for instance, Isaac Newton devoted considerably more of his writing to the study of alchemy (see Isaac Newton's occult studies) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy#Modern_connections_to_alchemy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabir_ibn_Hayyan --DuKu (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The essential question is not whether Newton was right or wrong in his chemical work, but what methods he applied. Frankly I cannot image that a person who did so much for mechanics applied an incorrect methodology for chemistry. Remember that the true criterion for science is not whether a hypothesis is right or wrong, but whether it is susceptible to verification or falsification (as Popper taught us much later). Rbakels (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Misusing of refs

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the page history, and found 69 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this series of edits). Tobby72 (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

removed

I took this out as per mis-use of sources the citations do not verify the text and they are used out of context.

The ancestor to Newton's laws of [[inertia]]<ref>[[Aydin Sayili]] (1987), "Ibn Sīnā and Buridan on the Motion of the Projectile", ''Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences'' '''500''' (1): 477–482</ref> and [[momentum]]<ref>[[Aydin Sayili]] (1987), "Ibn Sīnā and Buridan on the Motion of the Projectile", ''Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences'' '''500''' (1): 477–482: {{quote|"Thus he considered impetus as proportional to weight times velocity. In other words, his conception of impetus comes very close to the concept of momentum of Newtonian mechanics."}}</ref><ref name=Nasr>{{citation|title=The Islamic intellectual tradition in Persia|author=[[Seyyed Hossein Nasr]] & Mehdi Amin Razavi|publisher=[[Routledge]]|year=1996|isbn=0700703144|page=72}}</ref> was the [[theory of impetus]] developed by the medieval scholars [[John Philoponus]], [[Avicenna]] and [[Jean Buridan]]. The concepts of [[acceleration]]<ref>A. C. Crombie, ''Augustine to Galileo 2'', p. 67</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia | last = Pines | first = Shlomo | title = Abu'l-Barakāt al-Baghdādī , Hibat Allah | encyclopedia = [[Dictionary of Scientific Biography]] | volume = 1 | pages = 26–28 | publisher = Charles Scribner's Sons | location = New York | date = 1970 | isbn = 0684101149 }} ([[cf.]] Abel B. Franco (October 2003). "Avempace, Projectile Motion, and Impetus Theory", ''Journal of the History of Ideas'' '''64''' (4), p. 521-546 [528].)</ref> and [[Reaction (physics)|reaction]]<ref>[[Shlomo Pines]] (1964), "La dynamique d’Ibn Bajja", in ''Mélanges Alexandre Koyré'', I, 442-468 [462, 468], Paris ([[cf.]] Abel B. Franco (October 2003), "Avempace, Projectile Motion, and Impetus Theory", ''Journal of the History of Ideas'' '''64''' (4): 521-546 [543])</ref><ref>Abel B. Franco (October 2003), "Avempace, Projectile Motion, and Impetus Theory", ''Journal of the History of Ideas'' '''64''' (4):521-546 [543])</ref> were also hypothesized by the medieval [[Islamic physics|Arabic physicists]], [[Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi]] and [[Ibn Bajjah|Avempace]].

Block quote

J8079s (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Galileo

While it later became convenient for Protestants to say that the trial of Galileo was Catholic anti-science, everyone was extraordinarily upset with the collapse of the geo-centric universe with which people had lived "forever." People of the time had "jobs" for the archangels - they dutifully moved the planets counter-wise (backward) in their orbit "around earth" conveniently (though wrongly) explaining their "drift." Everything was in a "sphere" about the earth. Everyone thought they understood everything. When the solar centered people triumphed, it was an emotional and spiritual wrench for everyone, not just Catholics. Student7 (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I read, pope Clement had known Galileo for a long time in his University years, and ordered him the (paid) work of comparing the two systems as well as impartially he could and draw conclusions. However, Galileo was as bright and caustic as our Richard Feynman and could not really refrain his causticity about Ptolemy's conceptions, as he had done with Aristotle's in his Pisa Tower free fall experiment with balls. He had already a lot of enemies in the University for that, and they clearly stated that if Aristotle and Ptolemy were laughed at this way, there was no reason the Church would not follow later by other people. This seemed to convince Clement to be cautious and not cover his long-time friend. As often, the way one say things speaks unfortunately louder than what one says :-(

Clement's attitude bears some similarity with Jean-Paul Sartre refusing to talk - except to close friends - about what revolted him and Beauvoir when they visited USSR, in order not to desesperate the workers (ne pas désespérer Billancourt). 82.226.27.88 (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Religion, superstition, and fear were replaced by reason and knowledge

This sentence is clearly pov on its surface even if a WP:RELY source can be found. For one thing, the stater is assuming that religion is the opposite of reason and knowledge.

If you are suggesting that we have replaced "sunrise." "sunset", "moonrise", stars "come out", let me know the replacements. I would be interested.

Astrology is still a profitable business along with allied industries; kids still avoid stepping on cracks in sidewalks. People play the lotteries using combinations of birthdays, years, etc. Many people expect that "bad news comes in threes."

I shouldn't have to comment on "replacing fear," but here goes. Are we well ahead fearing the use of atomic weapons quite possibly being planned as we speak/read, as opposed to (say) the crossbow? How about the very real deaths by war in the 20th century, greater than all other ages put together? Are we better off having replaced kindness? How about "climate change?" Is that a step towards "reason?"

To paraphrase a candidate for political office, "Are people better off spiritually today than they were 500 years ago?" There are sufficient material considerations that I don't want to go back. It would be a cultural shock. But I don't kid myself that my distant ancestors didn't feel better about themselves and their relationship to the universe than we do today. Student7 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The passage you object to is presented as a quotation from the noted Marxist historian of science, J. D. Bernal. It hasn't yet been provided with an accurate citation, but it does sound like Bernal's point of view and it is appropriate to a discussion of historians' opinions on the scientific revolution. Note that the rule on wikipedia against POV does not object to presenting the POV of reliable sources like Bernal's particularly in discussions of opinions about a topic (like the scientific revolution). It is standard procedure to leave an unsourced quotation standing with a {{citation needed]] template. If a source is not provided after a reasonable period of time, then the text should be removed.

The text put in its place (the Hartstone Festshrift) should be properly cited with author, pages, and title per Wikipedia's Citation policy, so that the reader can examine the source to see if it supports the claims being made.

I am, once again, restoring the repeatedly deleted quotation from Bernal. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

While the quote may (or may not) be accurate, it doesn't really seem appropriate, does it, to have a person of Bernal's standing, whom I never heard of before, making this statement, which, I admit, is a common misapprehension. Student7 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Like you, I disagree with Bernal, but he was a major figure in the historiography of science, and wrote a four volume survey, three volumes are still in print at MIT press. I think the best way to deal with his significant minority view is to present the views of other serious historians of science on the place of religion in the Scientific Reformation, the works of Robert K. Merton, Richard Westfall, and Reijer Hooykaas come to mind. I don't have time at the moment to dig into this project. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientific revolution or methodological revolution?

It seems to me that the Englightment in partuclar changed the methodology of science, and that new perceptions on substance are second. A consequence of this is that after the 17th century no genuine revolutions took place, at least in natural sciences. Newton followed basically the same method als Einstein or Heisenberg.

Social sciences were much later to adopt similar methodologies, and some people argue that jurisprudence is still in the Middle Ages as regards its methodology (e.g. attaching substantial weight to the question who made a certain statement rather than whether that statement is supported by facts and/or logic). Rbakels (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Anachronism

The article says "... the 16th and 17th centuries..." and "Replacement of the Earth as center of the universe...". Pythagoras had already replaced the Earth as center much earlier. His followers did the same, all long before the 16th century A.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.56.82 (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Phrases like "sparked ... Copernicus ..." also give the false impression that Copernicus's work was new. Galileo noted that his opinion was Pythagorean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.109.71 (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of the chemical elements were discovered well before the 16th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.109.71 (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Pythagorean opinion did not play a significant role in astronomical or cosmological thought before the time of Copernicus. In this regard, the article's discussion accurately reflects current historical understanding.

As to the elements, although certain chemical substances (e.g., sulfur, iron, copper) were known from antiquity, they were not understood as elements until the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. To interpret the discovery of these substances as a discovery of elements would be truly anachronistic.

To the extent this argument has any validity, it is adequately treated in the article's discussion of the changes as a scientific renaissance. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, (and this ought to be in Wikipedia somewhere), the replacement by Pythagoras and other Greeks had less to do with scientific observation (not that readily available to them) than the ancients belief that "fire (the sun) was superior to earth." Right answer, but really the wrong (and unconvincing) reason. Student7 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Aristarchus of Samos worked out from observation that the sun is vastly bigger than earth and therefore it's much more probable that earth orbits sun than vice versa. Right answer, right reason but quashed by Aristotle as heretical.Pertin1x (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Aristotle wasn't Catholic and he died before Aristarchus was born.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, Cleanthes not Aristotle (I don't know what being Catholic has to do with it). The point is that Aristarchus' heliocentrism was rational but was thought impious. Pertin1x (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Very Poorly Written

Lead in: The Scientific Revolution is an era...??????? 'Is an era' or 'occurred in an era of increasing fact based knowledge of the natural world'? I vote for latter. An era associated with??? Who wrote this?!! Can we get an articulate native English speaker to fix the myriad of non sequiturs here?!?!? I submit that the Scientific Revolution did not "begin" in Europe, rather it occured in European culture. Of course, the European Empires during the period spread the ideas and methods to the world. It was sparked by Copernicus? Garbage! Its impact can be seen by the publication, in 1543, of Copernicus' ... This article confuses cause and effect! Wasn't the "spark" the accumulation of facts contradicting those of the Greek philosophers? As well as the ability to disseminate new findings much more broadly (and quickly) than in the past? And finally, since time does not permit me to trash the whole thing, under Significance The "science" of the middle ages - ??? - should be the natural philosophy of the middle ages. there was no "science" as we understand the term. AND the last sentence first paragraph is a total non sequitur. Despite some challenges to the religious views...terrible. totally isolated and either needs some discussion of where "religious views" comes from (and why) or needs to be removed.15:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)