Scientific Revolution
The scientific revolution refers to the transformation of European understanding of nature between roughly 1543 and 1700, associated with figures such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton.
Definition
The period of profound change in European natural philosophy from the mid-sixteenth to the early eighteenth century that reshaped conceptions of the cosmos, matter, and the methods of acquiring knowledge.
Scope
This topic examines the changes in astronomy, physics, anatomy, and natural philosophy in early modern Europe: heliocentrism, the mathematization of nature, the rise of experiment and instruments, new scientific institutions and methods, and the eventual synthesis in Newtonian physics. It also covers the historiographical question of whether a single 'revolution' occurred at all, and the social and cultural study of how scientific knowledge was made and authorized.
Core questions
- What changed in how Europeans understood and investigated nature between Copernicus and Newton?
- Was there a single, coherent 'scientific revolution', or a more diffuse set of developments?
- How did experiment, instruments, and new institutions establish reliable knowledge?
- How were scientific facts socially constructed and made credible?
Key concepts
- heliocentrism
- experimental method
- mathematization of nature
- paradigm shift
- scientific institutions
Key theories
- Paradigm shift
- Thomas Kuhn argued that science advances not by steady accumulation but through revolutionary shifts in 'paradigms', the shared frameworks that define normal scientific practice, a model often applied to the Copernican revolution.
- The social construction of experimental knowledge
- Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer argued that experimental 'matters of fact' were established through social practices, witnessing, and rhetorical conventions, using the Hobbes-Boyle dispute over the air-pump as a case study.
History
The phrase 'scientific revolution' was popularized in the mid-twentieth century by historians such as Alexandre Koyre and Herbert Butterfield. Later historians, including Shapin, questioned whether the events formed a unified revolution, emphasizing instead the diverse practices and social settings through which early modern natural knowledge was produced.
Debates
- Did a 'scientific revolution' really happen
- Shapin opens by declaring that 'there was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution', capturing a debate over whether the term imposes false unity on disparate developments.
- Internal versus external explanations
- Historians dispute whether scientific change is best explained by the internal logic of ideas and discoveries or by social, religious, and economic context.
Key figures
- Steven Shapin
- Thomas Kuhn
- Simon Schaffer
- Richard Westfall
- Alexandre Koyre
Related topics
Seminal works
- shapin1996
- kuhn1962
- shapinschaffer1985
Frequently asked questions
- When was the scientific revolution?
- It is conventionally dated from Copernicus's De revolutionibus in 1543 to around the publication of Newton's Principia in 1687, though the boundaries and the very concept are debated.
- Did the scientific revolution conflict with religion?
- Relations were complex; some episodes such as Galileo's trial involved conflict, but many natural philosophers were devout and saw their work as revealing God's order, so the 'conflict' model is now seen as oversimplified.