Trace and discuss the course of the scientific revolution how did the religious and secular authorit

The Scientific Revolution, 1 Why then do we hesitate to grant [the Earth] the motion which accords naturally with its form, rather than attribute a movement to the entire universe whose limit we do not and cannot know? And why should we not admit, with regard to the daily rotation, that the appearance belongs to the heavens, but the reality is in the Earth? The Scientific Revolution was nothing less than a revolution in the way the individual perceives the world. As such, this revolution was primarily an epistemological revolution -- it changed man's thought process.

Trace and discuss the course of the scientific revolution how did the religious and secular authorit

Europe, to The scientific revolution took place from the sixteenth century through the seventeenth century and saw the formation of conceptual, methodological, and institutional approaches to the natural world that are recognizably like those of modern science. It should not be seen as a revolution in science but a revolution in thought and practice that brought about modern science.

Although highly complex and multifaceted, it can essentially be seen as the amalgamation of what was called natural philosophy with various so-called subordinate sciences, such as the mathematical sciences, astronomy, optics, and geography, or with separate traditions, such as those of natural magic and alchemy.

The traditional natural philosophy, institutionalized in the universities since their foundation in the thirteenth century, was almost entirely based upon the doctrines of Aristotle and followed rationalist procedures.

When those trained in natural philosophy began to recognize the power of alternative traditions for revealing truths about the physical world, they increasingly incorporated them into their natural philosophies. In so doing, these natural philosophers inevitably introduced different methods and procedures to complement and refine the earlier rationalism.

To fully understand the scientific revolution, however, requires consideration not only of what happened but also of why it happened. Before looking at this, it is necessary to consider the status of the scientific revolution as a historiographical category.

Although potentially misleading in so far as there were not, for example, defining moments when the revolution can be said to have begun or to have ended nor a recognizable body of revolutionaries who were all self-consciously affiliated with one another, it continues to be recognized as a valid label.

The lengthy time span of this revolution might also seem anomalous, but this is easily outweighed by the undeniable fact that approaches to natural knowledge in were completely different from those deployed in and that there is no exaggeration in calling these changes revolutionary. Those historians who have chosen to emphasize the undoubted continuities between the thought of the scientific revolution and medieval thought nevertheless concede that, by the end of the period, things were completely different from the way they had been at the beginning.

It is perfectly possible, for example, to see Nicolaus Copernicus —who first suggested that Earth was not stationary in the center of the universe but was revolving around the Sunnot as the first modern astronomer but as the last of the great medieval astronomers.

Far from being an indefensible position, this is the only way to fully understand what Copernicus did and how he did it. Nevertheless it remains true to say that the switch from an Earth-centered universe to a Sun-centered planetary system had revolutionary consequences that cannot possibly be denied.

Inspired chiefly by the Copernican revolution which he made the subject of an earlier book and its farreaching aftermath, Kuhn developed a theory about the nature of scientific progress based upon radical innovations that mark a revolutionary disruption from earlier thinking.

Given the importance of this historiographical category, it is hardly surprising that it has attracted a number of attempts to provide a simple key for understanding it.

Two of the most serious attempts to explain its origins are the so-called scholar and craftsmen thesis and the Protestantism or even Puritanism and science thesis. Deriving essentially from Marxist assumptions, the scholar and craftsmen thesis takes for granted the idea that modern science is closer to the work of elite craftsmen and skilled artisans than it is to the ivory tower philosophizing of the medieval university.

All that was required to bring about the scientific revolution therefore was a realization by educated scholars, provoked by the economic stimulus of the incipient capitalism of the Renaissance period, that artisans were producing accurate and useful knowledge of the physical world.

This thesis is untenable on a number of grounds. Among the more wide-ranging are the fact that it pays insufficient attention to the continuities between the natural philosophy of the scientific revolution and medieval natural philosophy and the obvious fact that craftsmen and artisans do not, as a rule, rely upon, much less produce, scientific thinking while doing their work.

There is too much reliance in these Marxist accounts on glib talk to the effect that experimentation is manual work, craftsmen indulge in manual work, therefore craftsmen do experiments.

Nonetheless it is certainly true that scholars began to pay attention to the work of technical artisans in the Renaissance, and this no doubt owed something to economic factors.

HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION

But the scholars took this craft knowledge and turned it into something closer to modern science; the artisans themselves were not already in possession of scientific knowledge.

The Protestantism and science thesis, based more on statistical claims that Protestants play a disproportionate role in the development of modern science than on causative explanation, is also problematic but much harder to dismiss.

Nevertheless the reasons advanced to explain why this might be so remain unconvincing.

Trace and discuss the course of the scientific revolution how did the religious and secular authorit

One of the most powerful refinements of this thesis, by the American sociologist Robert K. Merton —seeks to explain the culmination of the scientific revolution in late-seventeenth-century Englandwith the formation of the Royal Society and the appearance of its most illustrious fellow Isaac Newton —as the result of the rise of Puritanism in the civil war period.

Here the statistics have proved much less satisfactory, since it is virtually impossible, without merely begging the question, to say who was a Puritan and who was not. Moreover the suggested reasons seem to apply equally to all English Protestants, not just Puritans, and indeed in some cases to European Catholics as well.

The starting point for these explanations is the claim of the German sociologist Max Weber — that the "spirit" of capitalism is linked to the Protestant work ethic. Again it is difficult to accept the suggested reasons for this link, and yet, as a result of collective prosopography, a feeling remains that there must be some truth in it.

Another influential historiographical claim about the scientific revolution, but this time one that does not seek to explain its origins but its cultural impact, links the development of the scientific revolution with a vigorous reassertion of patriarchal values and the subjection of women.

Based on a historiography that presents premechanistic worldviews as holistic, organic, vitalistic, and feminine, the mechanical philosophy of the scientific revolution see belowby contrast, is shown to be manipulative, exploitative, and aggressively masculine.

Supported by pointing to the routine use of sexual metaphors by the new natural philosophers in which the investigator is recommended to subdue, constrain, and bind into service Mother Nature in order to facilitate penetrating her inner secrets, feminist historians have seen these attitudes as a reason for the gendering of science that persists into the twenty-first century.

There seems to be a prevailing assumption that science is a masculine pursuit and that women are somehow mentally unsuited to it. This is a legacy not of the ancient period or of the Middle Agesfeminists claim, but of the new approach to the natural world developed during the scientific revolution.

Although there is some interesting and undeniable evidence for this general view, the claim that earlier natural philosophy was in some way feminine or feminist seems merely tendentious.

The magical worldview, for example, was exploitative and manipulative for centuries prior to the scientific revolution. Why did the scientific revolution occur when it did at the end of the Renaissance and the beginning of the early modern period?

Why did it occur only in western Europe? More to the point, why did it not occur in ancient Greeceearly imperial Chinamedieval Islamor Byzantiumwhere there is enough historical evidence to suggest it might have occurred?

To what extent was the scientific revolution responsible for the subsequent cultural dominance of the West?Through scientific analysis, these three scientists created new thoughts and theories that challenged the assumptions of mankind made by the Catholic Church.

It was the beginning of a new era of thinking, an era where evolution of mankind and the universe were proved with scientific evidence and not holy texts.

SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION.

Trace and discuss the course of the Scientific Revolution. How did the religious and secular authorities react to thi. scientific revolution. Secular Authority Secular authorities didn't reject the scientific revolution because it provided new ideas and technological advances. Modern Effects 1. and ended after René Descartes's idea of deductive reasoning. Religious authorities rejected the Copernican system at first because it did not correlate with the Bible but later began to accept the scientific revolution. Secular authorities did not reject the idea of the scientific revolution. The Role of Religion in the Scientific Revolution Frederick Seiler February 2, Audio PDF In The Objective Standard, Fall The Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries was a defining moment in the history of Western Civilization.

SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION. The scientific revolution took place from the sixteenth century through the seventeenth century and saw the formation of conceptual, methodological, and institutional approaches to the natural world that are recognizably like those of modern science.

Start studying 10 words for ESSAYS. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Specifically discuss the role of Louis XIV and discuss, with specific examples, how he was an absolute monarch? essay #8 Trace and discuss the course of the Scientific Revolution.

How did the religious and secular. Discuss and analyze the political, social, and religious problems he faced over the course of his imperial reign (). Historical Causation Describe and analyze the ways in which sixteenth-century Roman Catholics defended their faith against the Protestant Reformation.

Trace and discuss the course of the scientific revolution how did the religious and secular authorit

• Trace and discuss the course of the Scientific Revolution. How did the religious and secular authorities react to this phenomenon? • Discuss the intellectual changes that took place in Europe during the Enlightenment. What were the Renaissance. view. For the intents of this article, we will begin the Enlightenment at the time of Newton’s publication of Principia (), and end it with the French Revolution of , a time of social change in continental Europe, and a period when the Industrial Revolution of England had gathered momentum.

Science and the Enlightenment - A Scientific Revolution