Talk:Scientific Revolution/Archive 3

Muslim Laundry List

Several paragraphs contain references to the accomplishments of Muslim scientist. These read like some kind of laundry list and are not tied in to the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th century, which is the subject of this article. If the works of Muslim scientists were known to later scholars and formed a basis for later development, that connection should be made. As it is, it is just confusing.Harold14370 12:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearer ending date

I was taking a look at this article, and the beginning has a rough starting date, however doesn't mention any specific end. I know that it is hard to pin down the dates of the scientific revolution, but many agree that it ended around 1700, and may have continued in some ways into the 19th century, but not as much. G man yo (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But not even the simple heliocentric 'revolution', traditionally mistaken for a scientific revolution, had ended by 1700. For example, the great Danish astronomer Ole Roemer who first discovered the speed of light is finite died still a Tychonic geocentrist in 1710, and even Newton's 1726 Principia did not present heliocentrism as hard established fact in its list of Phenomena, as distinct from hypothesis. It seems it was maybe only Bradley's 1729 confirmation of stellar abberration predicted by the twin hypotheses of a finite speed of light and an annual solar orbit by the Earth that completed the heliocentric 'revolution'. And many of the so-called 'revolutionaries' cited in this article, such as Donne and Bacon, were in fact geocentrists.--80.6.94.131 (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess, but could there be some note in the introduction paragraph for this. This would be very useful to users who are just looking to scratch the surface on the subject. And maybe you could even include something like, "Most people would say that the Scientific revolution lasted from X to Y, however in actuality, it continued much further as people often mistake the Heliocentric revolution for the scientific revolution." I would do it, but I just finished my 9th grade research paper on the epic battle b/t the Catholic Church and the scientists of the revolution (and I actually found out that the church didn't really care so much except in Galileo's case) and I'm pretty much done for awhile on researching the scientific revolution. That, and I don't know how to cite sources on wikipedia (stupid freakin' research paper, lol :P). Thanks for listening. G man yo (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

In the article's current claim I have italicised

"Although Newton's law of inertia had several similarities to Aristotle's theory of motion,[16] the salient point is that it differed in key ways, such as an external force being a requirement for motion in Aristotle's theory.[17]"

it is nonsense to claim that external force was a requirment for motion in Aristotle's physics. He posited (i) the internal force of nature or gravity in the case of sublunar natural motion, (ii) the internal impressed motive force impressed within the medium in sublunar projectile motion and (iii)the internal motive force of the celestial spheres in superlunary motion. It should thus be deleted with the whole senrtence that thus becomes pointless. The essential key difference between Newton's first law and Aristotle's principle of interminable rest or motion in a void is that for Newton the endless rest or motion predicated in his first law would be caused by an internal force according to his Definition 3, namely the inherent force of inertia, whereas for Aristotle and Ockham, for example, it seems it would not be caused by any force at all, neither external nor internal. I shall flag this claim as unsourced in order to try and elicit where Drake makes this mistaken claim and what evidence he provides for it in Aristotle's texts.--Logicus (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

At present the claim is documented by a citation to an article by Stillman Drake, a noted historian of Galileo's thought, in a reliable journal, the American Journal of Physics. You may believe this is false but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability not Truth. If you wish to delete this passage you may either:

• Show that the citation is in error because the article in question does not claim that external force is a requirement for motion in Aristotle's theory, or
• Provide citations to a similar reliable source stating that an external force is not a requirement for motion in Aristotle's physics.

In the latter case, the Neutral Point of View policy requires that you do not give undue weight to a position that appears rarely, if at all, in the historical literature. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Logicus: ‘Tis a fine day for American academic history of science, and surely a new nadir for it were that possible, when one has to point out and cite references that natural motion, unlike violent motion, does not require an external mover in Aristotle’s physics, whatever a logically challenged whacky deceased Canadian may have said. But fortunately McCluskey does not claim Drake was a reliable historian, nor that the allegedly reliable American Journal of Physics is a reliable journal on the history of science. Thus hopefully there may be no obstacle to even McCluskey accepting that the following extract from the article on Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy expresses the prevailing standard view, even in America and even whacky California, that natural motion does not require an external force in Aristotle’s Physics:

“Nature, according to Aristotle, is an INNER principle of change and being at rest (Physics 2.1, 192b20-23). This means that when an entity moves or is at rest according to its nature reference to its nature may serve as an explanation of the event.” [My caps.]

Hopefully even McCluskey will accept this satisfies his second sufficient justification for deletion, thus saving Logicus the burden of re-reading Drake’s follies. (For the uninformed reader, Drake was the unfortunate anti-Duhemian who claimed Duhem’s thesis that Galileo adopted scholastic impetus dynamics was false because impetus is not a causal motive force in Galileo’s dynamics, in spite of the copious evidence to the contrary in his own English translations of Galileo’s Dialogo and Discorsi.)

Thus I shall delete the whole misleading sentence.--Logicus (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Stanford encyclopedia article refers to an entity's "motion according to its nature" -- natural motion. You're right that an external force is only required for violent motion. And yes I am claiming that Stillman Drake is a reliable historian of science, having been Professor of that subject at the University of Toronto, one of the leading schools in that field and having been awarded the Sarton Medal for his work on Galileo.

I've restored the text adding the significant qualifier "violent motion". --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Logicus: It is most gratifying that McCluskey accepts that Logicus is right about something and therein also thus that presumably the learned Professor Drake and the American Journal of Physics were wrong and unreliable about something, if Drake did indeed claim an external force is required for motion in Aristotle's Physics in his learned article in that most learned journal, as this Wikipedia article apparently claimed. We are all fallible !

However, unfortunately McCluskey's anticipated restoration of the text just with the added qualifier 'violent' has now impaled it on the other horn of its dilemma, wherein the contrast it now makes with Newton's first law of motion, namely that violent motion does not require an external force in Newton's law/dynamics, is both false and also apparently unsourced unless Drake also makes this claim in the same article. In Aristotle's physics 'violent' motion is motion against nature/gravity and requires some countervailing force to overcome that of nature/gravity, but such motion also requires some countervailing force in Newton's dynamics. To put this in simple terms for such as professors of the history of science, thus for example moving a book from the floor to put it on a shelf requires an external upward force to move it upwards in violent motion against its own weight. Or if one were to identify 'natural' motion in Newton's dynamics with inertial motion, that is, motion caused only by the inherent force of inertia, and identify violent motion with accelerated motion, then Newton's first law says non-natural or 'violent' motion is caused by an impressed force, which is an external force, unlike the force of inertia, which is an internal force.

It is also notable that Heath does not claim "Newton's law of inertia had several similarities to Aristotle's theory of motion,[16]" as the article currently claims, but rather that Aristotle's principle of interminable locomotion in a void in Physics 4.8.215a19-22 was an early anticipation of Newton's first law of motion, as indeed Newton himself also claimed. --Logicus (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Logicus Corrective Edit: In the light of this discussion, Logicus replaces the text:

"While preparing a revised edition of his Principia, Newton attributed his law of gravity and his first law of motion to a range of historical figures.[15] Although Newton's law of inertia had several similarities to Aristotle's theory of motion,[16] the salient point is that it differed in key ways, such as an external force being a requirement for violent motion in Aristotle's theory.[17]"

by the following text

'In the Axioms Scholium of his Principia Newton said its axiomatic three laws of motion were already accepted by mathematicians such as Huygens, Wallace, Wren and others, and also in memos in his draft preparations of the second edition of the Principia he attributed its first law of motion and its law of gravity to a range of historical figures.[ref]A. R. Hall and M. B. Hall Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1962), pp.309-11; J. E. McGuire and P. M. Rattansi, "Newton and the 'Pipes of Pan'," Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 21, No. 2. (Dec., 1966), pp. 108-143[/ref] According to Newton himself and other historians of science[ref] Sir Thomas L. Heath, Mathematics in Aristotle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949), pp. 115-6.[/ref], his Principia's first law of motion was the same as Aristotle's counterfactual principle of interminable locomotion in a void stated in Physics 4.8.215a19--22 and was also endorsed by ancient Greek atomists and others. As Newton expressed himself:

"All those ancients knew the first law [of motion] who attributed to atoms in an infinite vacuum a motion which was rectilinear, extremely swift and perpetual because of the lack of resistance...Aristotle was of the same mind, since he expresses his opinion thus...[in Physics 4.8.215a19-22], speaking of motion in the void [in which bodies have no gravity and] where there is no impediment he writes: 'Why a body once moved should come to rest anywhere no one can say. For why should it rest here rather than there ? Hence either it will not be moved, or it must be moved indefinitely, unless something stronger impedes it.' " [p310-11, Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, (Eds) Hall & Hall, Cambridge University Press 1962.]

If correct, Newton's view that the Principia's first law of motion had been accepted at least since antiquity and by Aristotle refutes the traditional thesis of a scientific revolution in dynamics by Newton's because the law was denied by Aristotle.' --Logicus (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2008 (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. --SteveMcslutty (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)

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)

I think this quote should be removed, unless the correct reference can be provided. Currently the footnote points to Bernal's 1937 essay 'Dialectical Materialism and Modern Science', which is available online (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bernal/works/1930s/dsams.htm). The word 'religion' doesn't even appear in this essay. It's certainly possible that the quote comes from one of Bernal's other works, like the Social Function of Science. I'll check that book tonight, but if the quote can't be found there, the citation should be removed.Ollieha (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. That citation was originally tagged on the "Marxist" description of Bernal, then moved, then deleted in a general cleanup. But the rest of the paragraph is a reaction to the quote so you may need to remove the whole paragraph. It's certainly not the best introduction to the topic. But nor is having a "significance" section appropriate before the topic has already been defined. The Copernican, Newtonian and other revolutions were common parlance long before Kuhn - the term has grown through Koyré and Butterfield before being criticized more recently. Chris55 (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I see the passage and the reactions to it are still there. I think there's consensus to remove the paragraph, so I'm deleting it. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2015 (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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.148.44 (talk)

Dodgy?

This [1] re Pascal and Leibniz looks dodgy to me. The Leibniz stuff seems out of place here. The Pascal stuff looks overblown - he must have had precusors? - but maybe we should be saying more here about that William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed your comment after commenting out one of the subsections. Maybe needs rewording. Student7 (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

POV tone

Since we have all been raised to think that the Scientific Revolution was wonderful, it is a bit hard sometimes to be objective about reporting it. Remember that most of this cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And yes, in an argument between heliocentrism and geocentricism, I would rather argue the former. We have selected the former because it is "easier" to argue. Occam's Razor and all that. The ancients had the archangels to conveniently shove the planets into retrograde occasionally. I would have to come up with "something else" if I were to argue it.

But nearly all of this is based on ease of argument. I don't disagree, but reporting it like the ancients were idiots and we are "smart" is not quite the right tone. These things "just happened" and should reported as sequential facts, not as "progress." When the world ends (or doesn't) in 2100, due to "too much progress," will be time enough to decide whether it was "smart" or not. Student7 (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want a more NPOV then I suggest simply rearranging the wording of the introduction to:

Philosopher and historian Alexandre Koyré coined the term scientific revolution 
in 1939 to describe the emergence of modern science during the early modern 
period, when developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, medicine, 
and chemistry transformed views of society and nature.

This seems to me to then reflect all the facts in a more neutral tone. LookingGlass (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite certain what Student7 is referring to when he says that "most of this cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt." Clearly we have good historical documentation for the research and discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc. Perhaps he is questioning whether modern science is to be preferred, as he suggests it is only a choice on the basis of economy / Occam's Razor. Hence the article's implication that it is an improvement over earlier science is, in some way, a violation of NPOV.

Wikipedia's NPOV policy is concerned with presenting accepted scholarly opinions. There is general consensus among historians of science -- even among those most skeptical of the idea of progress -- that there is a sense in which the science of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton is an improvement over ancient and medieval science. To say that, is not to deny the significant contributions of those earlier traditions which, for example, provided mathematically and physically significant explanations of the motions of the planets.

LookingGlass's suggested modification would resolve Student7's concern, but by shifting the focus from the historical concept of the scientific revolution to the term, which seems to miss the focus of the article. The change, while well meant, doesn't seem to be an improvement. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with LookingGlass' change.

Except for some math stuff, science cannot be "proven" beyond all doubt (even math has small inconsistencies). You have to assume something. Sometimes two somethings which contradict each other, such as chemistry with orderly "shells" circling nuclei in tidy orbits, or quantum physics, where the order is in somewhat of a disarray.

Most science cannot follow it's own stricture of repeatable laboratory tests because the timeline is too huge or the spectrum of data is oversized: evolution and astronomy, for example. For evolutionary changes, scientists simply say at each new finding, "well that must have been more survivable" having said just the opposite yesterday before the new discovery.

We know little about Dark Matter/Energy, 80%+ of the universe. Dark matter wasn't supposed to clog together. A recent observation of two colliding galaxies showed that, indeed, dark matter does clog together. No one knows why, of course.

The universe was supposed to be expanding, accelerating because of the Dark Matter/Energy. A recent (2013) discovery showed that it has slowed down 3% since the Big Bang. A lot of what science "knows", it sometimes doesn't know the following year.

Material on science should not be presented in a more arrogant format than any other material. It should just be reported like any other material with reliable sources. Not like a piece de resistance. Student7 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what was revolutionary about the scientific revolution. The issue that many scientific facts turn out to be wrong is not any indication against science, but rather gets to the very heart of why science is so powerful and why it was revolutionary: rather than a body of strict facts, science is a method for determining the truth or falsehood of what we think we know. The very nature of it is to allow a continual refinement of knowledge based on continued observation. The idea that new data, gathered through careful observation and experimentation, should trump the existing body of knowledge was revolutionary.

Whether any particular person appreciates the outcome of this revolution (i.e. modern life vs. ancient life) isn't material to the discussion: the acceptance of the scientific method by a large number of people changed the world fundamentally. The fact that I'm discussing this through a network of computers with people I haven't met in person is a result of the scientific revolution. Rotundo (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

@ SteveMcCluskey: Steve, please don't change the formating I choose to use. I formatted my suggestion as I did so that OTHERS could QUICKLY identify the fact that a suggestion had been made for a change, and comment on it. Your formatting choice has made it appears to be a dislocated continuation of my comment rather than a suggestion for the text of the article. I realise you don't agree and I respect your opinion. I ask that you respect mine, and have reverted your change. Thank you for recognising that my suggestion was "well meant"! LookingGlass (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Returning to the matter at hand, the concept that there has been a "scientific revolution" in recent times is moot, as there are many drivers of any socio-economic etc change that is perceived as having resulted from science in "recent" times. The fact is that science has been transforming the way civilisations have been developing since the dawn of Modern Man, 50,000 years BP. The so-called scientific revolution is thus quite a different animal to that of e.g the Agricultural Revolution (12,000 yrs BP) or the Industrial Revolution (200 yrs BP). In my opinion attempting to write the article in a manner to intimate that this modern scientific revolution is an established fact, in the same manner as other revolutions, is to inappropriately dignify what seems to me to be merely a point of view. The "point" of the article as it is written is the very thing that causes it to have a non-NPOV. LookingGlass (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Addition of greater context and other translations of the Galileo quote in the footnote

I noticed the quotation from Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in the page, and was moved to verify it. In doing so, I ended up checking another earlier (now in the public domain) translation, and also found that the original Italian was available at Wikisource. As a help to other readers, I thought I'd include what I found in the footnote linked to the quotation. I added the following:

• The quote, with context (quoted part in bold): "Of such are the mathematical sciences alone; that is, geometry and arithmetic, in which the Divine intellect indeed knows infinitely more propositions, since it knows all. But with regard to those few which the human intellect does understand, I believe its knowledge equals the Divine in objective certainty, for here it succeeds in understanding necessity, beyond which there can be no greater sureness."
• In the 1661 translation by Thomas Salusbury: "such are the pure Mathematical sciences, to wit, Geometry and Arithmetick: in which Divine Wisdom knows infinite more propositions, because it knows them all; but I believe that the knowledge of those few comprehended by humane understanding, equalleth the divine, as to the certainty objectivè, for that it arriveth to comprehend the neces­sity thereof, than which there can be no greater certainty." p. 92 (from the Archimedes Project)
• In the original Italian: "... tali sono le scienze matematiche pure, cioè la geometria e l’aritmetica, delle quali l’intelletto divino ne sa bene infinite proposizioni di piú, perché le sa tutte, ma di quelle poche intese dall’intelletto umano credo che la cognizione agguagli la divina nella certezza obiettiva, poiché arriva a comprenderne la necessità, sopra la quale non par che possa esser sicurezza maggiore." (from the copy at the Italian Wikisource)

Another editor objected to the addition, so I'm bringing it to the talk page to lay out my reasoning and see if we can come to a consensus. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You didn't just notice the quotation from Galileo, you also noticed my contribution log and try your best on wikihounding, which I have warned you and documented clearly before:

"..let's see your beautiful contribution log, of course, there is lots of reverts, most(or all?) reverts anonymous editor. As for me, it includes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the corresponding talk pages.."

Now it is in addition to this one. So, it is not accusation, it is a scientific claim.

To respond your argument though, you are right that the original edit (which is not made by me) is a quote of something, that quote doesn't have the word "proposition" after "few", even though "few" refers to "proposition". So, to fix it we add a square bracket on "proposition" or "mathematical proposition" as we can see from original source, that's good, you have sharp eyes.

However, your unusual habit on quoting the actual quote as is while the source (and page number..) is given is essentially stereotyped or just edit disrupt. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "is essentially stereotyped or just edit disrupt". Could you clarify? I agree that adding the additional versions and extra context is unusual, but I'm not sure how it is disruptive or damaging to the article. Regarding the accusation of wikihounding, I already acknowledged that I am keeping an eye on your contributions, and explained why. I have not edited all the pages you have changed, merely the ones that I honestly consider I can improve (as in this case), or where I consider your edits to be making the encyclopedia worse. This is exactly the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"I agree that adding the additional versions and extra context is unusual"

Then what are you doing here. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Here, on the talk page? Discussing an addition I proposed. The fact that something is unusual does not in itself mean it is wrong. I do not understand what you are asking here. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Why act like a newcomer, I have also seen your contribution log and you definitely know more about formatting/citation..etc. than I do, we can verify this on your contribution log.

Why is your addition worth-noting? Why is the quote so confusing that you need multiple version including Italian source to verify that the quote means what it means? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Btw, you don't just quote half of my sentence, then say how you understand and all. This is what I said,

"your unusual habit on quoting the actual quote as is while the source (and page number..) is given is essentially stereotyped or just edit disrupt."

Your previous quote sounds like as if I claim your edit stereotyped without explanation. If you add the original Italian source, if you add reference to that, good, no one stops you from improving Wikipedia. Again, you don't quote the whole line, as if one does not know where the source is. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not quoting your sentence in full. Thank you for expanding on what you meant -- I take it that your objection is to the inclusion of the extra context around the quote, not the addition of the other translation and original? In case that is correct, I've re-added them to the article, without the additional context around the quote. I'm happy to remove it again if I misunderstood what your objection was. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is your addition worth-noting? Why is the quote so confusing that you need multiple version including Italian source to verify that the quote means what it means? --14.198.220.253 (talk)

Thanks for asking. I consider the part after the quote useful because of the mention of "necessity", which makes it clearer why mathematical propositions are considered to have such objective certainty, and the part before because it makes explicit what "few" is intended to refer to. Regarding adding the additional translation and the original -- I added the other translation because it was available in the public domain (unlike the modern translation) and so provided a full-text English language version. I added the Italian because it was at Wikisource, and I was glad that it had been added, and wanted to let people know it was there. BTW, did I understand your objection correctly, above, and if so, are you satisfied with the compromise currently on the page? 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"..and the part before because it makes explicit what "few" is intended to refer to."

Yes, this is what you tried to deal with the additional words, that is fine, but it is our consensus that the word is missing so we have a square bracket on it now. That's why your quotes are removed only after that is done. Let's see:

""...with regard to those few [mathematical propositions] which the human intellect does understand,..."

If it still doesn't make clear what does "few" refers to, then the reader must be very stereotyped, isn't it. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what definition of wikt:stereotyped you are using, but it's not one I've come across before. Nevertheless, it appears that we may now be in agreement, which I'm glad to see. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that including the rest of the Drake quotation in the main text would make it clearer: "for here it succeeds in understanding necessity, beyond which there can be no greater sureness". Incidentally, though the Drake edition is still in copyright, that part is available and is linked from the Dialogue page. Chris55 (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

questionable argumentation

I was reading along in this article and came across the assertion that Newton's recognition that Aristotle had anticipated aspects of Newton's laws "refutes Kuhn's thesis of a scientific revolution in dynamics". This assertion of a refutation seems a bit more contentious than is appropriate for an encyclopedia, unless perhaps this view (that Kuhn stands undeniably refuted) has achieved consensus within the philosophy of science. 05:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.208.13 (talk)

I don't like the idea of quoting "unpublished" material for such a weighty matter. I've added one. But Newton and his contemporaries were hardly refuting all the ancients. Slavish adulation of the ancients was the problem and failure to build on what the ancients had observed with their mediocre equipment. The "revolution" continued on from where the ancients and Middle Ages left off. Student7 (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The quotation is from Hall and Hall's published edition of Newton's Unpublished Scientific Papers, which is not an unpublished source. The quotation, however, was added to this article in the course of a content dispute by an editor with very unorthodox ideas in the history of science, who was subsequently banned from Wikipedia for a long pattern of disruptive editing.

The citation as it stands is adequate, although the quotation from Newton cited there does not support the refutation of "Kuhn's thesis of a scientific revolution in dynamics". Further editing may be in order.

@Student7: I note that your new citation does not appear correctly in the reference; could you put the full publication data author, title, publisher, date, etc. in appropriate form. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the reference to Aristotle, however the book to which your citation links is not Aristotle's Physics. Upon reading it a bit I found that the link is to a collection of Wikipedia articles, published by the PediaPress. The link goes to a page that reprints this section of the Wikipedia article on the Scientific Revolution.

Two points, it's Wikipedia policy not to cite Wikipedia articles and in this case the citation couldn't be any more circular. I'm deleting that citation.

I agree with the anonymous user who says that the claim of refutation is contentious and probably needs revision. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed the speculative claims about "refuting Kuhn's thesis of a Scientific Revolution", drawing on this earlier (April 2008) version of the article. Hope this resolves any concerns. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

People, better educated back in the good old days, constructed their own translations of "Attic Greek" authors. The one I found is a translation of Physics by by R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye of Adelaide. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Aristotle. I downloaded it to kindle, not being able to get the supposed html. I am not really sure what "page" I am on, so can't really quote that. The text I have reads:

"Further, no one could say why a thing once set in motion should stop anywhere, for why should it stop here rather than here? So that a thing will either be at rest or must be moved ad infinitum, unless something more powerful get in its way."

This seems to say essentially what Newton's notes supposedly say. Not sure, exactly how to cite a translated text. But it seems to be there in my copy.

It would seem more of a problem, I would think, to state unequivocally that Newton realized this in his unpublished notes! It seems "relatively" easy to find it in Aristotle. Not all that easy, or I would have done it earlier!  :) Student7 (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion raises two related issues.

• First, it refers to Newton's "unpublished notes", which have since been published by Hall and Hall. Since they have now been published and are widely available they do not fall under Wikipedia's policy against using Unpublished materials.
• The other issue concerns the use of primary sources. We have two primary sources here, Newton's claim that his law of inertia can be found in Aristotle and Aristotle's Physics itself. Here we come up against Wikipedia's policy about using primary sources, which says:

primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. (my emphasis)

The overall consensus of historians of science is that Aristotle's Physics does not maintain anything like the principal of inertia but requires the continual action of a motive power of some sort to keep a body in motion. The overall thrust of the discussion in Physics IV.viii (214b29-215a24) is to demonstrate the falsity of the hypothesis that a void exists. One of Aristotle's arguments is that if a void existed (which it does not) motion would continue indefinitely (which is absurd). As I. B. Cohen said (Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 19 (1964): 141) "Most historians of science today would hesitate to attribute to Aristotle any true share in formulating the Law of Inertia."

Drawing on that, Newton's claim that his principle of inertia can be found in the ancients is a part of his practice of "poring over the fragments of the ancients and elaborating dubious genealogies for his doctrines" (McGuire and Rattansi, p. 127). As his modern editors, Hall and Hall (p. 309) said, "Newton was prepared to find antecedents for the First Law of Motion not merely in the moderns, Galileo and Descartes, but in the ancients, Lucretius and Aristotle--an historical impulse which he later overcame."

These (and other) secondary sources indicate that we should not take Newton's historical interpretations of his ancient predecessors at face value. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused why you've deleted Newton's views when you yourself earlier noted that they were sourced (and published). Obviously, Newton couldn't have been making any claims about Kuhn... so while I agree there's no need to muddle this with a separate claim regarding Kuhn, I'm not sure I understand why you removed the Newton quote here with the edit summary "remove contentious claim" except that you go on to say "These (and other) secondary sources indicate that we should not take Newton's historical interpretations of his ancient predecessors at face value." but this has nothing to do with the "contentious" claim about Kuhn... I'd welcome a contribution of those (other) secondary sources to help provide context for the Newton quote but even then I don't see why it would need to be removed.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

e/c I see for example you've added another secondary source here on the talk page: ' As I. B. Cohen said (Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 19 (1964): 141) "Most historians of science today would hesitate to attribute to Aristotle any true share in formulating the Law of Inertia."' but no one was making that claim.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, in a while I'll revise that section to strengthen the secondary sources. I've always had problems with the Newton quotation because it was introduced to the article specifically to challenge the model of a Scientific Revolution. Now that we're no longer making that claim, do we really need the quotation? What function does it serve in our discussion of the Scientific Revolution? It seems to give undue emphasis to a claim that historians have rejected.

Do you have a reason to keep it? —SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I haven't looked it up in the article history (hopefully wasn't me) but I would have thought it was simply meant to be an example of the Renaissance respect for ancient learning introduced in the next paragraph. I went ahead and moved the quote down to break up that paragraph, so that the existing deflationary qualification follows immediately.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No it wasn't you ;) who first added the quotation with Newton's contentious claim that Aristotle knew the First Law of Motion (i.e., inertia). I am puzzled, however, why you insist on keeping that straw man (to use your terms) in the article. Would you please seriously consider my prior question as to what that misleading quotation contributes to the article. If you cannot give a good rationale for its presence, I will restore it to the footnote or, if you prefer, delete it entirely.

On other matters, since you seem seriously interested in the Scientific Revolution, would you give some thought to the ideas for a major revision I raised below. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yikes, the impetus guy...

You put it correctly here that Newton claimed [the ancients, e.g.] Aristotle, "knew" the First Law of Motion (i.e. the "first law"). But your "controversial" claim (the straw man) was different: that Newton meant Aristotle wasn't just in the peanut gallery, but rather that he played a role in "developing" Newton's first law of motion.

I'd certainly be glad to clarify if I can but there's nothing misleading on the face of it and I don't think you've established that the quote is controversial outside of debates about Kuhn's thesis. So why even use the quote outside of that debate? Well, because in the course of discussing Renaissance respect for ancient learning, the article says: "Newton attributed his law of gravity and his first law of motion to a range of historical figures including Pythagoras, Lucretius, and Aristotle. 'All those ancients knew the first law [of motion] who...'".

WP:BRD So, please don't keep trying to change "it to the footnote or, if you prefer, delete it entirely" but do keep trying to see beyond the cruft of Logicus... from the perspective of an article about the period in history rather than a paradigm shift and surely can work something out if that's still not sitting well with you.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 08:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Article outline

The recent move of the section on the significance of the scientific revolution from directly after the lead to the middle of the article brought me back to an old problem with the organization of this article. Long ago I proposed a new outline for this article. That proposal was soon derailed by a lengthy debate over whether there was such a thing as a scientific revolution at all.

Since that controversy has now died down, perhaps it is time to reconsider fundamental revisions to this article. As it stands it has several different overlapping sections (New Ideas, Scientific Developments, Theoretical Developments) which describe the content of the revolution. Some of them are little more than lists of great (and not so great) achievements. I'd welcome suggestions; perhaps we could undertake a revision to bring this article up to good article standards. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping to add a little more, but have been waiting for another user to return a library copy of Shapin before committing myself. It seems to me that there were many scientific revolutions talked about in the 18th and 19th century, but the contributions of Koyré and Butterfield and others morphed the idea into something rather different which I don't fully understand. The problem seems to be that all the revolutions have been diverted to the Kuhn link - but there should be a discussion rather near the front which points out these issues. If we don't know what the term means, how can we talk about its significance? Chris55 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad you're considering working on this. I began studying History of Science reading Koyré and Butterfield, and the Halls and Westfall. They defined the Scientific Revolution as that unique historical event influencing all the sciences, which extended chronologically from Copernicus to Newton (although Butterfield did write of a "delayed scientific revolution in chemistry").

Although more recent writers question the validity and usefulness of the concept, it is one of those historical terms (like Feudalism) which, while challenged by scholars, still has popular meaning. It deserves a better discussion than the current one. —SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Rather than refer back to an outline in the archives, I'm providing a working outline for discussion here. The most controversial change I'm proposing is to eliminate much of the content in the overlapping lists of discoveries. I feel the article would be more coherent if it focused on the major changes and major actors of the Scientific Revolution, the significance of those changes, and current interpretations of the concept of the Scientific Revolution.

Proposed Outline

• Lead (Introduction and Summary)

1. Ancient and medieval background
2. Transformational developments and their reception
   1. Copernicus's De revolutionibus
   2. Vesalius's De humani corporis fabrica
3. New Approaches to Nature
   1. The Mechanical Philosophy
   2. The Chemical Philosophy
   3. Empiricism
   4. Mathematization
4. Subsequent Developments
   1. The New Astronomy
      1. Kepler
      2. Brahe
      3. Galileo
   2. The New Physics
      1. Galileo
      2. Descartes
      3. Newton's Principia
5. Institutional changes
   1. The changing role of patronage
   2. Networks of communication
      1. Printing
   3. Scientific societies
6. Historiographical Critiques
   1. Continuity with Middle Ages
   2. Renaissance or Revolution?
   3. non-European influences
7. Significance of the "Revolution"

One may wish to add to the five major actors I've included here: Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton; proposals to add other significant persons (or topics) are obviously welcome as part of the discussion.

Hope this outline can ultimately lead to an improved article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't understand the emphasis on Galileo and "physics." He ground great lenses for a telescope and (therefore) did first see moons circling a planet. And became the focus of an Inquisition. Great Physicist? I don't know... Great egotist. Great PR. Not that great a physicist IMO.

Descartes deserves to be in several places. But again, "physics"? Newton seems to stand supreme there. Student7 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree that Newton stands supreme, but his physics was greatly influenced by that of his predecessors, especially Galileo and Descartes. Galileo contributed substantially to the concept of inertia and to the mathematical understanding of falling bodies. Descartes also contributed to the concept of inertia, to the mechanical philosophy, and led Newton to the question of what keeps the Moon in orbit around the Earth. Newton read both Galileo and Descartes carefully and one might ask whether Newton would have made his discoveries without them.—SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I would think that Johannes Kepler was more influential on Newton than Galileo. Kepler is given credit in his bio (and in your outline, as well). Kepler relinquished the "circling" theory of planets around the sun, correctly guessing that there was "something else" going on, resulting in ellipses. Galileo could hardly improve on this with his detection of moons "circling" Jupiter. His bio gives him some credit for Newton's theories, but mostly for his improvement of lenses, essential for making observations, and the observational techniques themselves. More of an implementer than a thinker, it would appear. Student7 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that your comments about Galileo (who my outline places with Descartes and Newton in the section on the New Physics) focuses on his astronomy rather than his physics. These different perceptions indicate why it's so hard to clean up an article like this.

If we can't get a consensus on something as simple as an outline, I'd be reluctant to dive into undertaking such a project. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we have placed an Anglo-centric, Protestant-centric value on the contribution of Galileo. It was fairly easy to make a post-trial martyr out of him and we have all heard this stated dozens, if not hundreds of times (Heard to mutter "it moves" at the end of his trial). But with a little more objectivity now allowed us, I think we can "see through" the propaganda and merit Galileo for his real contributions and not his inflated ones. In other words we need not pit the Catholic-conforming Copernicus and Kepler against the unfairly accused "heretic", Galileo. If we give them each where credit is due without promoting one on the basis of being unfairly condemned, I think we can place all in their proper place in history. Student7 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with your comment that we don't want to provide a heroic treatment of Galileo but should limit the discussion to his real contributions to the Scientific Revolution. It shouldn't be much of a problem doing that since, even in its present state, the article doesn't discuss Galileo's conflict with the Church. I don't see the "Anglo-centric, Protestant-centric" approach you refer to in either the either the present article or the proposed outline. The "it moves" line does not in the present article and insofar as it relates to Galileo's astronomy/cosmology, it won't be very relevant to the proposed outline, which plans to focus on his work in physics (inertial motion, studies of inclined planes, etc.)

Interestingly, the only mention of religion in the present article is a quotation from J. D. Bernal. The lack of serious treatment of science and religion in the scientific revolution suggests that maybe we should add a discussion of it to the outline. There is an extensive body of serious historical literature on that topic we could draw on.

Your critical insights are useful, but do you have any positive suggestions as to how the article should develop? SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrt Galileo, I don't think one has to consider him as a martyr: he is of immense significance for many other reasons: his 2 New Sciences as well as the Dialogue (even tho apparently Newton didn't read the former); also his effect on the Accademia dei Lincei and Accademia del Cimento as well as his influence on Gassendi.

Wrt Steve's outline, I certainly think it's an improvement, tho am not sure about the placing of "Chemical Philosophy". The "Chemical Revolution" is generally credited to Lavoisier at the end of the 18th C - it was pretty much a mess till then wasn't it?

But I think the outline still corresponds more to Butterfield's title "The Origins of Modern Science" than to anything which constitutes a revolution. Since the "broad view" of the topic has been exploded by so many people (including Shapin), shouldn't we be taking a narrower view: ie. the radical change from an authoritarian view of science epitomized by Aristotle to an empirical narrowly hypothesis-driven methodology which emerged in the 1617th C and which spawned its own autonomous societies? Chris55 (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over the outline, which may not have been totally clear. The chemical philosophy does not refer to what Butterfield called the delayed revolution in chemistry but to the alchemical movement that influenced the matter theory of Newton, Boyle, and others. I agree we don't want to extend the concept of the Scientific Revolution as far chronologically as Butterfield had, but feel that the chemical philosophy, with its idea of active material bodies (corpuscles?) certainly belongs.

I must disagree, however, with framing the article around the notion of a "change from an authoritarian view of science epitomized by Aristotle to an empirical… methodology" on three grounds.

• First, the notion that earlier (medieval) science slavishly followed authorities is a false stereotype; the Middle Ages saw an active transformation and challenging of received learning on both rational and empirical grounds.
• Second, Aristotle (and the Aristotelians) frequently argued on empirical grounds. Interestingly, Koyré and others (who I'm not trying to defend here) argued that the Scientific Revolution saw the investigation of nature move from a naive Aristotelian empiricism to a Platonic mathematical idealization of nature (as seen in Galileo and Kepler).
• Third, I'd be reluctant to reduce the Scientific Revolution to a single methodological change. New methodologies are part of the picture, as I've suggested in the sections on Empiricism and Mathematization under New Approaches to Nature, but the SR is about much more than methodology.

SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I respond to your points? 1. Most scientists did start from Aristotelian assumptions, which by the 16th C were heavily endorsed by the Catholic church, and struggled to frame things differently. He obviously did establish ideas of causation that have given rise to one part of the scientific outlook but most of his assumptions about the physical world were highly misleading. Bacon attacked him as lightweight and said that more attention should be given to later Greek scientists. 2. Aristotle was a much better biologist (and logician) than physicist. His biology is largely observation whereas in physics it only affected his basic assumptions: if he got those slightly wrong everything went awry, particularly meanings of terms. e.g. his idea of gravity and levity and motion misled everyone. Getting these right was very much part of the revolution. 3. Conceptual change is certainly part of the SR but expanding the topic to include every new scientific idea in the 16-18th century, as the present article does, makes the whole notion vacuous. Chris55 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

extending over an extended period changed to ->taking place over an extended period

Repetition of word "extend" seems to me somewhat, well, repetitious. Also, it sounds a little like a tautology (which it is not). Gakrivas (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Information revolution merge suggestion

Oppose: The topic of this article has nothing whatsoever to do with Information revolution.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose'. Per above, not very related. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Quotes and italics

Resolved

This edit added a quote from Joseph Ben-David. The indented text starts italicised but the last parenthetical sentence is not italicised. Is that last sentence part of the quote or not? Normally quotes are not italicised - the italics should be removed, but first we need to be clear as to whether all of the indented text is actually a quote. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well there is a citation and the relevant part is online, so what's the problem? (It does seem to be part of the quotation.) Chris55 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Should article include tie to religion?

An editor keeps putting this line into the ancient and medieval background section; "Some scholars have noted a direct tie between "particular aspects of traditional Christianity" and the rise of science." The sentence seems to be thrown in there randomly and seems WP:POINTY to me. The editor that insists on the sentence has a history of edit warring and agenda pushing, however, if other editors feel the sentence is appropriate and necessary for the section, I will welcome the consensus. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that the argument could be made that the (social) belief or sense of orderliness in experience ('the belief in an orderly universe') could be credited for the expectation that rational inquiry makes sense (as an investment in time and energy). I don't think that they quotation (above) SAYS that (as such), but (to the extent that 'a sense of the orderliness in experience' correlates with 'aspects of traditonal Christianity') one might see some parallels or correspondence (enough for a somewhat casual observer to intuit a possible relationship, even a causal relationship) between the two (stable organized worldview, as in rationalized, well-developed medieval Christianity, and efforts in rational, methodical, organized, systematic inquiry - science). MaynardClark (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Good question. The original edits added what seemed to be an exaggerated claim about the influence of "Christian metaphysics" on the rise of science. There is a minority historical claim to that effect, discussed by Lindberg and Numbers in their classic book on science and religion. Since it's not a fringe claim, I edited it to "particular aspects of traditional Christianity" to better reflect the nature of the claim and tweaked the references to include Lindberg and Numbers' cautionary comment. Others may differ but I think it's appropriate as a one-liner; any further emphasis seems excessive. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both comments above, however I do not understand why the special "nod" for Christian Metaphysics? Scholars have made non-fringe arguments that every religion and science has some intersecting point. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think something on this order belongs in the article, in order to counter the popular (but incorrect) notion that religion must be at odds with science. (Note that that notion is found within a Marxist bias, among others.) It would certainly be unbalanced and overstated to ascribe the rise of scientific inquiry to Christian metaphysics, but an equally unbalanced omission not to recognize that all inquiry into truths (of various kinds) stem from a common wellspring in human nature, and which also find expression in such things as Christian metaphysics. Moreover, scientific inquiry developed within a social context which already had a long-established world view that included both ancient research and a Christian religious belief that interpreted much of what had come before. Clashes between scientific advances and certain religious authorities (discontinuously) are well-recognized but poorly understood and often mischaracterized. Science is a tool based upon human inquiry and reasoned understanding. But the elevation of human reason into a "highest of all possible" inquiries is a metaphysical idea, not a scientific one. There are still intersecting points and overlaps, and always will be, and the scientific revolution, for all its advertised prominence in overturning of an older worldview, was not alone in establishing or maintaining a new one. Scholarly views of these relations are, of course, what we need for the article, but I am arguing that they have a definite and notable place to fill here.

I'm not opposed to the sentence that has been inserted. The main fault I would find with it is that it doesn't do much to throw light upon just what is the relation between the world views, or between science and metaphysics, theoretically or historically. I think that is why it comes across as perhaps a little pointy or out of place. It's the appearances that are somewhat wrong, not the basis for content. It still looks too much like an unrelated promotion of something Christian, and still too little like the integration with metaphysics that it ought to be. Evensteven (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Anti-religious intent

The whole effect of the scientific revolution was to de facto get rid of God and get rid of Christianity, the ruling ideology of the time. They did this by dethroning the earth (based on inconclusive evidence) and attaching "mechanical" and "mathematical" explanations for things (based largely on conjecture) to establish materialist ideology and eliminate the entire concept of spirit. The article completely ignores the real significance of the scientific revolution.

01:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.73.113 (talk)

Very few historians of the scientific revolution would support the position you are advancing. If you can find reliable sources who support this opinion, who I suspect will be shown to be a minority of historians, you are free to present their positions in the article with appropriate citations. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Barycenter

We are told that the "barycenter" is inside the Sun. It is often outside the Sun. This claim was made to prove that "heliocentrism" was "demonstrated". Heliocentrism is correctly put in the list of obscelete theories. See Superseded scientific theories#Astronomy and cosmology. Copernicus claimed that all the stars were equidistant from the Sun. If true, his claim would be heliocentrism. His claim is now thought to be completely untrue. There is no reason to refer to the "barycenter" of the selected Solar System only. Copernicus included the supposedly stationary and supposedly equidistant stars. The barycenter of the selected Solar System seems to spend about half the time outside the Sun. It is rarely or never at the center of the Sun. Copernicus and Galileo did not have modern ideas of gravity and did not refer to any barycenter of anything. See Superseded scientific theories# Astronomy and cosmology. The Sun is not solid and has no center. It is not wise to pull chestnuts out of the fire for Galileo and Copernicus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.203.100 (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, the Barycenter isn't always in the body of the Sun. I've replaced the word "demonstrated" with "espoused" to avoid a fruitless edit war. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Archaic spelling in direct quotation

I recently restored the archaic spelling "drayning" in a direct quotation from a 17th century source; Alejandrocaro35 (talk · contribs) subsequently restored the modern spelling. WP:MOS specifies that "In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization." I will restore the archaic spelling once again and hope this doesn't lead to an edit war. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)