Scientific Revolution

Since [the Scientific R]evolution overturned the authority in science not only of the middle ages but of the ancient world - since it ended not only in the eclipse of scholastic philosophy but in the destruction of Aristotelian physics - it outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of medieval Christendom. Since it changed the character of men's habitual mental operations even in the conduct of non-material sciences, while transforming the whole diagram of the physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality that our customary periodisation of European history has become an anachronism and an encumbrance. —Herbert Butterfield

Most often referred to as occurring in the Western world roughly between the years 1500 and 1700 CE, the historical period called the Scientific Revolution witnessed progressively greater numbers of people asking questions about the workings of the natural world; discussing, debating, and discovering answers to those questions; and experimenting and finding new ways to find answers both to those questions and the new questions that arose as a result. In consequence, a new worldview emerged, which created the modern mind.

Historian of science John Henry introduces the concept of the scientific revolution as follows:

The Scientific Revolution is the name given by historians of science to the period in European history when, arguably, the conceptual, methodological and institutional foundations of modern science were first established. The precise period in question varies from historian to historian, but the main focus is usually held to be the seventeenth century, with varying periods of scene-setting in the sixteenth and consolidation in the eighteenth. Similarly, the precise nature of the Revolution, its origins, causes, battlegrounds and results vary markedly from author to author. Such flexibility of interpretation clearly indicates that the Scientific Revolution is primarily a historian’s conceptual category. But the fact that the notion of the Scientific Revolution is a term of convenience for historians does not mean that it is merely a figment of their imaginations with no basis in historical reality.

The period of the Scientific Revolution is also commonly referred to as 'the early modern period', or as 'early modern science.'

Early revolutionary events

The scene-setting 16th century (1501-1600)

Several events occurred between 1501 and 1600 that one might consider as having jump-started the Scientific Revolution:

• In 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus's On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres revolutionized the worldview of Ptolemy's picture of the cosmos as earth-centered, with the planets and the Sun revolving around the earth, showing that a sun-centered system with the planets revolving around the sun provided a simpler and more accurate depiction of astronomical observations.

• Within two weeks in 1543, Andreas Vesalius's De humani corporis fabrica (The Structure of the Human Body) replaced Galen's flawed 2nd-century animal-based depictions of the anatomy and physiology of the human body with an accurate depiction derived from dissections of human cadavers.

• In 1600, the last year of the sixteenth century, William Gilbert's De Magnete ("On the Magnet") applied experimental observations to discover the properties of magnetism and electricity, decisively refuting speculation-based theories supported by his predecessors.

Adverse consequences of The Scientific Revolution

The following was adapted from Eisenstein (2013).

The Scientific Revolution exacerbated and accelerated a trend that had begun with the earliest human ancestors. That trend began with the discovery of technology. Early humans discovered that they could use stones to make tools to aid them in important tasks of survival such as cutting, chopping, scraping. Tool making, developed into a sophisticated toolset. For the first time, humans changed their relationship with nature. They no longer were amalgamated with the whole of nature, living naturally without discrete selves distinct from others. By taking a modicum amount of charge of nature with their stone tools they began the initial stages of distinguishing themselves from what now became the environment. From there they could discern other humans as their environment as well. That began the development of a sense of self, a self separate from the environment, nature. An embryonic Age of Technology and Age of Separation came into existence.

With the ability to harness and then to make fire, humanity gained the ability to further control nature, which led to additional technologies, such as cooking and pottery making. Technology spurring separation spurring more technology. At first there was no science, only technological crafts. With the advents of science humanity could now systematically work to develop methods to control nature. The Age of Technology matured, further distinguishing the human realm from the environmental realm, nature.

Why then do we have today an environmental crisis? Have we gone too far in our attempt to control nature? Some believe the problems of environmental pollution that were the consequence of technological progress can be fixed with new technoscience. Considering history, does that seem plausible?