by The concept of the scientific revolution is an abstract one in the sense that it is hard to define. During the “time frame” of the scientific revolution (roughly the 16th century-18th century) it is unlikely that common folks or even the natural philosophers discovering “new” ideas knew they were part of the revolution. This is because the term scientific revolution was not coined until the mid 20th century when historians and scientists started debating and looking into the history of science. The problem that arises to me about the whole concept of the scientific revolution is why define it in the first place. Society seems to tend to want to organize history and tie it up in a nice bow, but this just simplifies the history. We very well might be in another “scientific revolution” right now, honestly, society is always evolving and discoveries are always occurring. It feels more accurate to say we are perpetually in a state of scientific revolution than to say there was one scientific revolution. All this being said, I understand it is nice to be able to label periods for the sake of organization, it is just restrictive.
During the time that is recognized today as the scientific revolution one of the things Steven Shapin points out in his book is that none of the ideas were entirely new but rather were built upon old ideas or concepts. The notion that ideas surrounding cosmology that “came from” the scientific revolution came from that time alone is a result of simplifying history. Aristotle lived well before the scientific revolution and Copernicus and Galilea disproved his geocentric ideology during the scientific revolution. On its face, this seems like his work was rendered useless by Copernicus and Galilea but the opposite is true. The natural philosophers during the 16th-18th century needed his ideas to be able to build on them and completely alter them. Aristotle’s geocentric theory is in some ways the basis of heliocentrism. Sometimes it is the failed ideas that are more valuable than the successful ones.
Another result of simplifying and labeling the history of the scientific revolution is people and ideas may get lost along the way. When I was taught about the scientific revolution I was only taught about the “important” natural philosophers such as Copernicus, Galilea, and Newton even at the progressive school in New York City I attended. While I understand it is impossible to cover every natural philosopher there ever was, it is interesting to think about all the people that are not taught in schools.
It is true that between the 16th and 18th centuries conjectures and mathematical methodologies surrounding cosmology fundamentally changed. I, however, argue that across history, there have been and in the future will continue to be discoveries some overnight and other over decades that will fundamentally challenge and change a once commonly held belief. For the sake of being inclusive of history and discoveries, it makes more sense not to define certain periods but rather zoom out and try to look at the whole picture as best we can. It is important to acknowledge that there is some history that is not recorded. And even in today’s world of contemporary technology not every aspect of every discovery will be recorded. It is, however, still necessary to try our best to understand the whole picture.