by Steven Shapin criticizes the labeling of the time period that roughly ranges from the 16th – 18th century as the “Scientific Revolution” in his book, “The Scientific Revolution.” He does so not out of a failure to understand the importance of the developments made during this time, but because he does not truly see it as a “revolution.” Shapin’s view and argument on this topic contains some very convincing points, and fits the idea of viewing scientific history from a broader scope, instead of so close-up. He argues that the “Scientific Revolution” should not be labeled as such, because it was not a permanent be-all end-all of science, but simply a period of time in which many advancements were made in cosmology. For example, while figures such as Newton, Copernicus, and Kepler may have furthered general scientific knowledge in their respective fields, they did nothing to further the likes of neuroscience, mechanical engineering, or many others. In short, science is an ever-evolving subject that will likely forever continue to have its questions answered, and in turn present new questions. A specific period in which much was learned about cosmology is no doubt important, but Shapin argues it is just a piece of the entire puzzle that is the history of science.
The term “Scientific Revolution” was coined for that time period by historians/scientists after the fact, meaning that it was dubbed so by people who had no part in it. While some scholars during this period felt like they were at the forefront of an intellectual breakthrough, they clearly did not think of it as something like a “scientific revolution.” Similarly, in the modern day it feels like there are enormous breakthroughs an an almost monthly basis with things such as AI, observing a black hole, etc. Some casually dub this period as a “technological revolution” or think that future generations and textbooks will call our time as such, but what have we done for sciences that not yet exist? Consider the previous point about how people like Newton, Copernicus, and Kepler did much for cosmology, but nothing for neuroscience or mechanical engineering. Little to nothing was known regarding neuroscience during their time, and even less so about mechanical engineering, which is believed to have truly began in the late 18th to early 19th century when many began focusing on the field of physics. Now, back to the example of modern day advancements in sciences that currently have little to no solid evidence, theories, etc to them – what have current scientists discovered or learned about the existence of alien life? What about, for the sake of argument, time travel? Little to nothing on the former, and absolutely nothing on the latter. Of course, the theoretical likelihood of time travel being possible is quite low, but if on the off-chance it or other similarly undeveloped fields come to be discovered as possible and developed, we would have done nothing to advance that up to this point.
In short, science is not a stagnant thing that can be labelled easily with something as grandeur as the “Scientific Revolution.” It builds upon itself to continue its evolution, unlike something like “World War 1,” for example, which had a very specific and clear starting and ending point, and from which knowledge was gained, but not applied to further a field (unless one wants to discuss the development of guns and other types of warfare related subjects, which, in turn, would be the advancements of science, and thus my point stands). It is important to view scientific history from a broad perspective, and not focus in on specific discoveries so much so that the period ends up being defined something as impressive sounding as the “Scientific Revolution.” By doing so, it implies that the most important and revolutionary advancements and discoveries are confined during that period, which cannot be true when the previous points about scientific evolution are taken into account, nor when one considers that the “Scientific Revolution” was essentially just a struggle between cosmological advancements and the church.