The Scientific Revolution is ‘the
name given by historians of science…when, arguably, the conceptual,
methodological and institutional foundations were first established’ and the
main focus of the Scientific Revolution is usually ‘held to be the 17th
Century’[1]
The ‘mathematization of nature’…has been seen as an important element in the
Scientific Revolution, and during this period we see the ‘replacement of a
predominantly instrumentalist attitude to mathematical analysis with a more
realist outlook’[2]
An example of this realist outlook
would be Nicholaus Copernicus, who, alongside Vesalius, some would argue
represents the start of the Scientific Revolution. He believed that ‘mathematical analysis
reveals how things must be; if the calculations work, it must be because the
proposed theory is true, or very nearly so’[3].
This way of thinking is in much contrast to the earlier Instrumentalist views
which ‘believed that mathematically derived theories are put forward merely
hypothetically’[4].
Copernicus revolutionised astronomy by combining it with physics and adapting
the two to prove his theories, and published an early description of his
"heliocentric" model of the solar system in his book called Commentariolus in 1512. It included ideas about the
positioning of planets; and while this is itself was not revolutionary,
Copernicus went a step beyond and also
worked out his system in full mathematical detail. However, ‘There has been a tendency to see Copernicus,
not as a truly revolutionary figure in the history of science, but rather as an
essentially conservative figure’[5].
Another figure who was essential in the explanation of the origins of the Scientific Revolution was Andreas Vesalius, whose work appeared at a similar time to that of Copernicus. He represented the beginnings of significant developments within anatomy and physiology. Unlike those before, Vesalius taught anatomy whilst performing his own dissections. Whilst it could be argued that Vesalius made no practical changes to medicine, this practice was unusual and had never been seen before, as the traditional role of the physiologist was to read an ancient text, such as Galen, whilst a surgeon did the dissection. Vesalius’ first main development was that his book The Epitome, he "established with startling suddenness the beginning of modern observational science and research"[6]. His second important development was that in his book De Humani Corporis Fabrica, he claimed to have ‘counted some 200 cases in which Galen's anatomy was in error’[7] and was one of the first people to properly challenge Galen’s ancient ideas, stating in his book: ’The veins take origin, not from the hollow vein where this passes through the septum (though that was Galen's view) but rather from those that pass down from the throat along the breast bone’[8], showing that he sought to disprove Galen’s earlier incorrect theories. The reason why this is so revolutionary is that ’Others had pointed to Galenic errors, but hithero no one has proposed a consistent policy of doubting the authority of Galen' until Vesalius dissected and observed the human structure to obtain a true source of anatomical knowledge and 'indicated a sufficient number of errors where it had not been followed to prove his case and so make a fundamental contribution to science’[9]
Gallileo Galilei was also vital to the Scientific Revolution. He studied physics and the laws of motion and gravity, and invented the telescope and microscope; developments which meant that microbes could be seen to cause illness. This development led to the later proof of the germ theory and development of Pasteurisation by Louis Pasteur in around 1864[10]. When he eventually combined his discovered laws of physics with observations he made with his telescope he defended the heliocentric Copernican view of the world and universe. It can be argued that Galileo was a revolutionary due to the censorship which was imposed by the Catholic Church on him in 1633 when he was sentenced to house arrest for his publication of his book Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the world. The church were offended by Galileo’s support of the heliocentric theory that the earth circulated the sun, as 'The bible gives us a picture of a stationary, flat earth' and within Psalm 104:5 is stated: 'Who hath laid the foundations of the earth that it should not be moved forever'[11], which reaffirms the religious belief that the earth stands still. However, the discoveries of Galilei set the foundations for modern medicine and science, and that:
Another figure who was essential in the explanation of the origins of the Scientific Revolution was Andreas Vesalius, whose work appeared at a similar time to that of Copernicus. He represented the beginnings of significant developments within anatomy and physiology. Unlike those before, Vesalius taught anatomy whilst performing his own dissections. Whilst it could be argued that Vesalius made no practical changes to medicine, this practice was unusual and had never been seen before, as the traditional role of the physiologist was to read an ancient text, such as Galen, whilst a surgeon did the dissection. Vesalius’ first main development was that his book The Epitome, he "established with startling suddenness the beginning of modern observational science and research"[6]. His second important development was that in his book De Humani Corporis Fabrica, he claimed to have ‘counted some 200 cases in which Galen's anatomy was in error’[7] and was one of the first people to properly challenge Galen’s ancient ideas, stating in his book: ’The veins take origin, not from the hollow vein where this passes through the septum (though that was Galen's view) but rather from those that pass down from the throat along the breast bone’[8], showing that he sought to disprove Galen’s earlier incorrect theories. The reason why this is so revolutionary is that ’Others had pointed to Galenic errors, but hithero no one has proposed a consistent policy of doubting the authority of Galen' until Vesalius dissected and observed the human structure to obtain a true source of anatomical knowledge and 'indicated a sufficient number of errors where it had not been followed to prove his case and so make a fundamental contribution to science’[9]
Gallileo Galilei was also vital to the Scientific Revolution. He studied physics and the laws of motion and gravity, and invented the telescope and microscope; developments which meant that microbes could be seen to cause illness. This development led to the later proof of the germ theory and development of Pasteurisation by Louis Pasteur in around 1864[10]. When he eventually combined his discovered laws of physics with observations he made with his telescope he defended the heliocentric Copernican view of the world and universe. It can be argued that Galileo was a revolutionary due to the censorship which was imposed by the Catholic Church on him in 1633 when he was sentenced to house arrest for his publication of his book Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the world. The church were offended by Galileo’s support of the heliocentric theory that the earth circulated the sun, as 'The bible gives us a picture of a stationary, flat earth' and within Psalm 104:5 is stated: 'Who hath laid the foundations of the earth that it should not be moved forever'[11], which reaffirms the religious belief that the earth stands still. However, the discoveries of Galilei set the foundations for modern medicine and science, and that:
‘The new…course of thought and
research characteristic of modern civilization is represented by the fact that
the technical specialization of these elementary notions is merely an aspect of
Galilo’s basic conceptions of motion, matter, intertia, vacuum, and relativity.
The intuitive background and the speculative consequences of these conceptions
mark the turn in the evolution of science and thought which separates the
modern from the antique and mediaeval minds.’[12]
Following on from Galileo was perhaps ‘the single most important figure of the scientific revolution’[13] who took current theories on astronomy by the likes of Copernicus even further and, based on laws of universal gravitation, formed a correct model of the workings of the universe. He explained his theories in his revolutionary work Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687. Not only did he make these developments, but his work also began working toward developing calculus. Newton’s ideas were considered revolutionary as at the time his ‘theory was heretical' and in France it 'attracted those who were unhappy with the current order of...society and the dominance of the Catholic Church'[14], suggesting that even at the time he was associated with change in a new direction. Traditionally, Newton represents the end of the Revolution which established Modern Science, and he was said to have ’set the frame of reference for physics and science in general until the emergence of relativity and quantum physics in the early twentieth century'[15], showing how long his ideas dominated within science.
However, there are historians who argue that 'the word 'revolution' hardly began to acquire its modern meaning until the eighteenth century' and 'the notion of there having been a Scientific Revolution might still just be quite simply wrongheaded'[16], ideas which challenge if there was a Scientific Revolution at all. There were also developments outside of science which led to the change in ideas which can be seen in the Early Modern period, and so it could be argued that there was not simply a revolution of new scientific ideas, but a complete revolution of culture, religion and education. It could also be argued that it was simply time for change in Europe, due to the lack of advances made within the Middle Ages, and as Protestantism was on the increase after the reformations, many were more open to new scientific ideas. This was due to the idea that God revealed himself in both the Bible and in nature and so nature should be studied because it helped with faith and understanding of god.
The Printing Press was also vital
to the spread of new ideas as it provided an easier, more accurate way to share
discoveries due to more readily available, less expensive books which were made
in the vernacular. The printing press enabled the non-scientific community to
take part in the discussions on discoveries and made science a vital part of
education in the Early Modern period.
Finally, the military had an increasing need for new technology for warfare, in the Thirty Years War and others, so this strongly encouraged scientists to do more research on issues which would aid the development of warfare and make the country prosperous. Furthermore, war meant travel, and travel led to the sharing and spread of new ideas around Europe. It could be argued that these ideas were the reason why there were many developments within Science, not because there was a revolution.
However, the argument of there being a Scientific Revolution stands, as can be seen in the aftermath of The Scientific Revolution, where a huge number of changes can be seen. This demonstrates that there was a huge development in ideas which revolutionised society. For example, the new ideas presented a number of challenges to religion, one of these being that the idea that the universe worked like a machine, meaning that it could function without the assistance of God. This spread of new scientific ideas led to a wave of new thinking based on reason and logic rather than spirituality and belief.
It could also be argued that by the eighteenth century, the educated classes denied the existence of demons and the power of witchcraft. The sceptical views of the educated classes were important, as they embraced new ideas, and 'Between 1961 and 1963 Balthasar Bekker... denied the pact with the Devil...demonic possession and the very practice of harmful magic itself' and 'mounted a sustained attack on learned witch-beliefs'[17], which shows that there was a development of ideas that were completely different to the witch-obsessed mentality of the early 17th century. However, ideas such as these were not shared by the common people, whose religion remained important to them, and so he result was a divide between learned and popular culture.
Finally, the military had an increasing need for new technology for warfare, in the Thirty Years War and others, so this strongly encouraged scientists to do more research on issues which would aid the development of warfare and make the country prosperous. Furthermore, war meant travel, and travel led to the sharing and spread of new ideas around Europe. It could be argued that these ideas were the reason why there were many developments within Science, not because there was a revolution.
However, the argument of there being a Scientific Revolution stands, as can be seen in the aftermath of The Scientific Revolution, where a huge number of changes can be seen. This demonstrates that there was a huge development in ideas which revolutionised society. For example, the new ideas presented a number of challenges to religion, one of these being that the idea that the universe worked like a machine, meaning that it could function without the assistance of God. This spread of new scientific ideas led to a wave of new thinking based on reason and logic rather than spirituality and belief.
It could also be argued that by the eighteenth century, the educated classes denied the existence of demons and the power of witchcraft. The sceptical views of the educated classes were important, as they embraced new ideas, and 'Between 1961 and 1963 Balthasar Bekker... denied the pact with the Devil...demonic possession and the very practice of harmful magic itself' and 'mounted a sustained attack on learned witch-beliefs'[17], which shows that there was a development of ideas that were completely different to the witch-obsessed mentality of the early 17th century. However, ideas such as these were not shared by the common people, whose religion remained important to them, and so he result was a divide between learned and popular culture.
In conclusion, regardless the
outcome of a divided society, there is far more evidence to suggest that there
was a Scientific Revolution in the Early Modern period, and without the new
ideas put forward by scientists, mathematicians and medical figures, the other
factors within society would have had nothing to promote and the foundations of
Modern Science would not have been established. The other factors of cultural,
religious and social changed merely helped in the spread of the revolution, and
did not introduce the revolutionary ideas themselves; proving that there was a
significant revolution of science within the Early Modern period.
[1]
John Henry, The Scientific Revolution and
the Origins of Modern Science, (Great Britain 1997), page 1
[2]
John Henry, The Scientific Revolution and
the Origins of Modern Science, page 8
[3]
John Henry, The Scientific Revolution and
the Origins of Modern Science, page 9
[4]
John Henry, The Scientific Revolution and
the Origins of Modern Science, page 8
[5]
John Henry, The Scientific Revolution and
the Origins of Modern Science, page 10
[6] Gary
D. Rosenberg, The Revolution in Geology
from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, (United States of America 2009),
page 1 (said by Saunders and O'Malley 1950 page 9.)
[7] Stanley
Finger, Origins of Neuroscience: A
History of Explorations Into Brain Function, (1994 Oxford), page 22
[8]
Translated by William Frank Richardson and John Burd Carman, originally by
Andreas Vesalius, The Fabric of the Human
Body: The Heart and Associated Organs; The Brain, (Auckland 2009), Page 34
[9] Charles
Donald O'Malley, Andreas Vesalius of
Brussels, 1514-1564, (United States of America 1964), page 183
[10]
‘Louis Pasteur’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/pasteur_louis.shtml,
[accessed 10/12/12]
[11] Joe
E. Holman, Project Bible Truth,
(2008), page 124
[12]
Leonardo Olschki,
Galileo's Philosophy of Science, The
Philosophical Review, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jul., 1943), page 349
[13]
William E. Burns, The Scientific
Revolution: An Encyclopedia, (United States of America 2001), Page 217
[14]
William E. Burns, The Scientific
Revolution: An Encyclopedia, Page 221
[15]
William E. Burns, The Scientific
Revolution: An Encyclopedia, Page 217
[16] Ed.
Margraet J. Osler, Rethinking the
Scientific Revolution, (United States of America 2000), page 317
[17]
Brian P. Levack, The Witchcraft
Sourcebook, (United States of America 2004), Page 313
No comments:
Post a Comment