Scientific revolution

:This article is about the period in history, not the process of scientific progress via revolution, proposed by Thomas Kuhn and discussed at paradigm shift

Emergence of the revolution

There is much scholarly debate as to the nature, emergence, and even the existence of the scientific revolution. To some extent, this arises from different conceptions of what the revolution was; some of the rancor and cross-purposes in such debates may arise from lack of recognition of these fundamental differences.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A widely-held notion is that a scientific revolution began taking place around the year 1600. That is, that time signified the emergence of dramatic, historically rapid changes in and expansion of science, in its practice and theory. Science, as it is treated in this account, is essentially understood and practiced in the modern world; with various "other narratives" or alternate ways of knowing omitted.

Related Topics:
1600 - Modern

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A striking case for this point of view is presented by the historian of science Howard Margolis as part of a larger (and controversial) theory of the causes of the revolution (Margolis, 2002). It may be summarized in the following lists of significant advances in science:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2nd century

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• Galen's work in anatomy
• Ptolemy's calculations of planetary motion. (This and Galen's anatomy, though largely superseded by later work, are none the less important contributions to science.)

Fourteen centuries are omitted here.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

About 1600

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• Uniform acceleration of falling bodies (Galileo)
• Inertia and inertial frames of reference
• The Earth as a magnet
• Theory of lenses
• Kepler's laws of planetary motion (Kepler)
• Telescopic discoveries: moons of Jupiter, lunar mountains, phases of Venus, etc. (Galileo)
• Laws of hydrostatics
• Constant period of the pendulum (Newton)

The second list covers well under 100 years.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It is not easy to find work of comparable importance, apart from that of Copernicus, to fill out the intervening period. Margolis reports that the most commonly suggested candidate for filling the gap is Alhazen's theory of intromission; that is, that vision is by means of light emitted from bodies, not rays from the eye. Giving this important work its full value (regardless of its antecedents in Aristotle), it still does not go far to fill fourteen centuries, and the other candidates are few:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Gilbert and Stevin each discovered more that has proved important for modern science than the combination of everyone who lived during the fourteen centuries between them and Ptolemy. But for Kepler and Galileo a claim this bold is not merely arguable, but beyond real dispute. If you measure what either Kepler or Galileo discovered against everything discovered in the previous 1400 years, it is no contest. (Margolis, 2002; p. 139)

Related Topics:
Gilbert - Stevin

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In this interpretation these extraordinary changes, beginning with Copernicus and extending to the early 17th century, are the raw data on which are built the theoretical studies of how and why the revolution took place, and what changes in society and thought resulted from it. Other accounts of what constitutes the revolution exist and lead to quite different studies.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~