Mankind has rational thought. We are centered in purpose. Our purpose being figuring out who we are in the universe. Why are we here and what are we doing? We ponder these questions every day. Aristotle, the dominating power of the scientific revolution, says that in this universe, people by nature have an innate desire to know things; and, these things could be anything. At the end of the 17th century, natural philosophers were replaced by scientists who attempted to define “things” by quantities such as mass, atoms, pressure, etc. Did this replacement force changes in how mankind thinks about the world? Yes and no. What came first, philosophical This question follows the same notion as the “what came first the chicken or the egg” theory. We don’t know the answer and we never will know the answer, but, we will try to figure it out anyway.
The word “revolution” itself is basically our attempt to understand the massive changes we see happening in our universe. But are these massive changes actually a specific cataclysmic event in which the modern world tries to conquer the medieval world? Well, that’s what the phrase “the scientific revolution” implies. The science behind the revolution is socially and historically driven. The ideas of mankind’s past philosophers, scientists, and the like entertained new ideas and now, we try to find their wider cultural and social contexts. But what counts as scientific? The answer to this question varies based on time and location. Different generations, cultures, religions, and races all have different perspectives shaping their truisms.
Look at the 17th century again. To people, the revolution during this time meant imitating the past greek and roman empires. To this society, this idea seemed like progress, and, in some ways, it was. This revolution ended up causing a radical change in their current political which ended up in the formation of a whole new political system, for better or for worse. This example delves deeper into the lens of what a revolution means. In this example, we can take a step back and look at a revolution by using the past as example rather than in order to create a new “utopian” system. Which lens is better? That’s uncertain but, we all know that looking through someone else’s prescription glasses can be pretty fuzzy.
It seems like, with all of this uncertainty, many of the changes that occurred during the Scientific Revolution were not purely scientific. In my opinion, the phrase “a scientific revolution” better suits this historical event. There is no universal, definite definition of the term “science” and revolutions are what the definition of the word is meant to be: rotating and turning. This inherently means that a revolution is not a steadfast law. It is shapable, transformable, and changes based on opinion. A revolution is a way to evolve mankind’s need for knowledge and understanding.