The Scientific Revolution that took place in Europe between roughly the 16th and 18th centuries has been questioned for years for its validity in answering the statement that is its title.  Sure, one could easily point out people in different parts of the world at different times who’d taken part in greater scientific discoveries, or others who’d revolutionized thought in relation to the natural sciences to a greater extent than those typically mentioned in conjunction with the Scientific Revolution.  But as I would argue, and as even Professor Cohen pointed out, the Scientific Revolution was still pretty unique no matter what one may think of it, and I think that in and of itself makes it more of a standout to start.

The sum of the work of many during this time period led to a collective revolution in science and philosophy, and being that back then the two were far less distinctive than today, a revolution in thinking about the natural sciences.  One example could be how we aren’t taught the thought process concerning certain movements based on the theorizing by an ancient Greek or Roman, we’re taught Newtonian physics and the mathematical approach to how and why things move.  No, Newton didn’t just stumble upon such equations, but rather was probably influenced by the knowledge collected by his predecessors. But the fact that he took that thinking and brought in the element of math to answer his questions was revolutionary.

When it comes to the idea that the Scientific Revolution is undeserving in its name because other scientific discoveries were equally, or more, revolutionary than those that took place during the Scientific Revolution, I would still argue that it was the collection of this change in approach to thought during this time that rendered the name appropriate.  Should it be given the high pedestal to stand on that some believe it deserves? Probably not.  But should it be downgraded simply because we know of other discoveries prior to this time period that may have been more revolutionary? I don’t think so either, because if it weren’t for the thinkers of this time who changed their approach to things in pursuit of greater knowledge, it’s possible other things following such events may have taken longer to be discovered or understood.  And for that reason, I (mostly) stand with the idea that it’s acceptable that we mark this time period in history as the Scientific Revolution.