A Study of the Scientific Revolution
著者
journal or
publication title
volume
page range
year
URL
Harran Thomas, Era Hidenori
Bulletin of the Kyushu Institute of
Technology. Humanities, social science
51
15-27
2003-03-31
http://hdl.handle.net/10228/3586
15
A Study of the Scientific Revolution
(Received December, 2002)
Thomas HARRAN
Hidenori ERA
This paper traces the development and analyses the impact of the Scientific
Revolution in Europe. The revolution brought about a transformation in the way
Europeans conceptualized the universe. New discoveries about the nature of the
universe and the structure of nature undermined old models and raised fundamental
questions concerning the source of authority for ultimate truth. The Scientific
Revolution also led to a series of changes in the structure of European thought, which
replaced religious models with secular ones, and caused a serious spiritual crisis. The
nature of this crisis and the impact of modern science are examined in order to gain a
better understanding of their influence on modern world views as well as
contemporary attitudes to scientific and ethical problems.
Key words: scepticism, scientific method, secularization, religion
1. Introduction
Natural calamities and fatal accidents seem to have an uncanny way of shattering
our confidence in our ability to understand natural phenomena. However, whenever
they occur, we often hire experts to search for their cause. Facts are gathered and
examined in order to formulate hypotheses as to why these tragedies happen, and
tests are carried out in order to prove various theories. Although the families of
victims grieve over the death of their loved ones, and seek solace by attributing their
loss to some sort of divine plan, their belief in the power of science to find answers
never completely wanes. The reason for this tendency is that people expect
scientific experts to find the answers to their questions and to explain phenomena.
Furthermore, it seems that modern man relies on science to explain the world and
himself; and he resorts to it to make sense of the inscrutable events that occur in his
life. This paper will attempt to explain how this tendency came about, and will
discuss its overall effects on contemporary thinking.
16 Thomas HARRAN'Hidenori ERA
2. Background of the Scientific Revolution
The origins of the shift in world views from a religious one based on the authority
of the Church to a secular one based on empiricism date back to the 16th and 17th
centuries - a phase in European history known as the Scientific Revolution. During
this time profound changes took place not only in natural science and technology,
but also in man's way of perceiving the world. This revolution was really an
intellectual one in that the growing forces of science brought about a series of
gradual changes in the structure of European thought: systematic doubt, empirical
and sensory verification, abstraction of human knowledge into separate sciences,
and the mind-set that the universe can function like a machine. Developments in
science during this period gave rise to the secularization of the human mind, and
played a vital a role in undermining old traditions and ways oflife. In a sense, these
changes were the seeds that grew into the secular mind-set ofmodern man.
Perceptions of events are sometimes shaped by the way in which historians
interpret them. The Scientific Revolution is a phase in history that is thought to
have come about suddenly.' Some historians have tended to interpret this phase as
if it occurred explosively and suddenly. The public mind is led to believe that
somehow science did not exist before the 16th and 17th centuries, and that the
world of the Middle Ages was completely immersed in darkness and superstition.
As Richard Hooker points out in one of his essays, it was Roger Bacon, the great
medieval scientist, who really invented the empirical methods that would form the
cornerstone of empirical science of the 16th and 17th centuries. His trial and error
method of finding knowledge and of cataloging all the circumstances of trials formed
the foundation of modern scientific research. Although Europeans slowly began to
change their methods of science in the late Middle Ages, the core of thinking
remained medieval; that is, they continued to believe that the center of truth and
experience was in God. Furthermore, medieval scientists depended on church
doctrine and Aristotelianism, which is also known as Scholasticism. J.M Roberts
(1990:628) argues that `medieval science rested on assumptions which were
untested, in part because the means of testing them could not be grasped, in part
because the wish to test them did not exist'. Medieval scientific thought would not
change until there was a new conception of the universe based on natural Iaws, and
a willingness to trust human petception and the material world.
AStudy of the Scientific Revolution 17
3. Systematic doubt and the role of mathematics
When the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) was signed, the bloody religious battles,
known collectively as the Thirty Years's War, came to an end. This treaty maybe
seen as turning point in European history because statesmen began to face the
reality that fighting and killing was not necessarily an effective way to establish
God's truth. The religious wars contributed to the undermining of church dogma.
Thinkers gradually began to abandon the old authorities on truth, and started to
turn to the principles of doubt to anive at the truth. Descartes's work Discours
epitomizes this change. In his work, he teaches that the pursuit of knowledge must
begin with systematic doubt. The attitude of doubting assumptions is one of the
cornerstones of modern science, and skepticism is essential to science because no
new theory can be accepted blindly. For these reasons, experiments are usually
canied out by scientists to prove or disprove the validity of theories that are
advanced.
In addition to the secularization of the human mind, another change that emerged
from the 17th century was the importance of the application of mathematics to the
science of mechanics. It is likely that the increasing use of firearms perhaps
brought about the need to gain a better understanding of the nature of the motion of
projectiles. In fact, the problem of the flight of projectiles led Galileo to study the
gravitational fall ofbodies. The law which states that all bodies, regardless oftheir
weight, fall through the same distance in the same time was proved by devising a
graduated inclined plane and then measuring the time taken by the bodies to roll
down given lengths of the plane. The significance of this experiment is that it
allows us to gain an understanding of the methodology he used in his research. By
"geometrising" the problem and using mathematics, he was also able to show that
a body remains in the same state of uniform motion so long as it is not acted on by
a force. Moreover, he believed the `book' of the universe must be written in
mathematical language. Butterfield (1997:100) points out that `without the
achievements of mathematics, the scientific revolution would have been impossible'.
In a sense, it was Galileo who laid the groundwork for a mechanical view of the
universe by means ofmathematising problems. (Butterfield, 1957:84)
4. The mechanistic view of the universe
The developments in early modern science culminated with Iasaac Newton's
Principia. In this work, he describes his model of a mechanical universe. The
18 Thomas HARRAN•Hidenori ERA
Principia was of great importance because it dealt a serious blow to traditional ways
of thinking. In this work, Newton put forth the following theories : ') the universe
can be explained mathematically. 2) it operates rationally and predictably according
to mathematical descriptions.3) religion is not necessary to explain the physical
phenomena of the universe, and4) all planets and objects move because of a physical
attraction between them.
The changes in intellectual thought in the 17th century cannot be attributed
solely to the influence of Newton's work. Butterfield (1957:131) suggests that the
growing familiarity with clocks and machines at the time may have been a factor in
bringing about a gradual change in the way the universe was conceived.
Furthermore, he points out that a reaction against superstition may also have
played a role in creating the mechanistic view of the universe. As result of
increasing superstition and religious wars, a desire to prove that there was indeed a
divine order to the universe arose in people's minds. Without regularity in the
workings of the universe, Christian miracles would have no meaning and nature
would seem magical. In fact, he suggests that `the intellectual leaders' desire to
show that the universe operated like a clockwork had religious motivations'. There
was yearning to prove divine order and perfection by demonstrating that the
universe ran with the same regularity as a clock. This aspiration is reflected in
Newton's ideas. In his work, he describes the universe as a huge machine of objects
moving and colliding into each other and each functioning according its own laws
like the balls on a billiard table. However, God in Newton's system is still the
intelligent and omnipresent governor. It was Newton's clockwork vision that
became the dominant model of the universe for the next several centuries.
5. The Influence of Protestantism
The mechanistic view of the universe slowly changed the way western man
conceptualized the universe. The belief that God was like a watchmaker who built
the mechanism ofthe universe and left it to run on its own is known as Deism. The
Deists believed that the phenomena of the universe are rational and mechanistic
and can be explained without reliance on religion or authority. Hooker (1996:11)
suggests that `all modern knowledge and the majority of our experience is
ultimately derived from this principle'.
The emergence of the secularization of the human mind and the mechanistic view
of the universe cannot be attributed solely to the scientific achievements of this
period. There are a number of other important factors that contributed to the
AStudy of the Scientific Revolution 19
religious and intellectual transformation of Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries.
The turmoil of religious wars sapped the intellectual authority of the Roman
Catholic Church. The protestant reformers at the time advocated that people
should reject the authority of catholic priests and each seek a personal spiritual
truth. Likewise, the early scientists rejected scholasticism and began to search for
truth in empirical experience. Hodges (2000:8) argues that protestants began to
Iook to the natural world for answers about life's deeper questions. He suggests
that study of the physical world became worthy because many protestants came to
believe that the natural world provided evidence of God's ways. Further factors
that may have contributed to the change in intellectual thought were the Calvinist
attacks on the traditional concept of the hierarchy ofbeings. Mason 1962: (181-182)
notes:
The removal of the angelic beings from the government of the universe in Calvinist
theology was indeed an attack upon the idea that the world was peopled by a graded
scale of beings, each possessing a decree of power which decreased as the scale was
descended.
He explains that according to Calvinist theology God governed directly as an
absolute ruler by means of decrees decided at the very beginning of creation. He
implies that these decrees are really the laws of nature, and that the belief that God
ruled in this way is actually the doctrine of predestination. Mason points out a
similarity between the attacks by the Calvinists on traditional theology and those
made by the scientists on traditional cosmology. He argues that their attacks
prepared the way for a new mechanical-theological world view.
6. Changes in political power
Changes in political power also provide evidence to suggest that the shift from a
religious world-view to secular a one was not only due to the effects of science. The
long religious wars led to the eventual decline of the political power of the feudal
baron and the collapse of the intellectual authority ofthe church. As a result, a new
system of power -- a national state ruled by a powerful king -- gradually replaced
feudal law and church law. At the same time, urban centers such as London, Paris,
Antwerp, Milan, Strasbourg and Geneva emerged with a new political hierarchy
based on the power of money. In fact, urban leaders and kings sometimes joined
forces against the feudal lords and church bishops. These shifts in power produced
a political climate congenial to the process of secularization and urbanization.
20 Thomas HARRAN•Hidenori ERA
7. The influence of the printed word
The rise of the printed word was another significant factor in bringing about
changes in thought at this time. The dissemination of knowledge enabled writers to
influence people's religious allegiances, and the increase in printed bibles gave
individuals the freedom to read and interpret the scriptures in their own way. The
growth of the publishing industry played a vital role in promoting vernacular
languages and in disseminating scientific knowledge. The exchange of scientific
information was made possible by the printed word and, as a result, allowed
scholars to collect and compare data from different sources related to one subject
matter. Furthermore, the importance of collecting data and comparing texts
became the principal methods of reporting research results. Boorstin (1983:386)
points out that the exchange of information promoted the growth of scientific
societies throughout Europe and ultimately led to the concept of science as a
collective body of systematized knowledge. Lastly, the waning of the Church's
authority in scientific matters was eroded by the infiuence of the printed word;
without books the seeds of scepticism could never have been planted, and the search
for truth without the approval of the Church might have been impossible.
The proliferation of travel books also had a profound effect on the outlook ofmany
Europeans. As they become more familiar with distant lands, the outlook of
Europeans slowly changed. Butterfield (1957: 195) writes:
Western Europe was now coming to be familiar with the widespread existence of
peoples who had never heard of ancient Greece or of Christianity. When these are
taken into a larger survey, the European outlook came to be envisioned not as
universal ...... but somewhat as a regional affair.
He implies here that the byproduct of this exposure was that Europeans come to
regard their culture and religion with a degree ofrelativity. This change in attitude
towards other peoples played an important role in creating new visions of the world.
The ability to regard one's own culture and traditions with a degree ofrelativity was
a contributing factor in fostering new attitudes towards peoples in the New World.
Boorstin (1983:628) points out that Columbus's descriptions of the people he
encountered in his travels reflected a change in the way Europeans viewed the
people of the New World. His reports describe the Indians as people who had
"handsome bodies and very good faces". Furthermore, one ofhis letters reveals that
he considered them to be a congenial and gratefu1 people. Although his reports of
the people he encountered may not seem extremely important, they do provide
AStudy of the Scientific Revolution 21
evidence of an incipient shift in attitude towards peoples who had once been viewed
as less than human. Likewise, the French naturalist Alcide d'Orbigny, who spent
almost eight years exploring South America, declared in his work "L'homme
Americain"in 1839 that among all men there is only one `species'. This new
outlook emerged because of European's gradual familiarity with different peoples
around the world. The knowledge gained as result of their discoveries became a
significant factor in undermining the old biblical myths about people whose skin
color was different.
8. Discussion
The achievements of explorers and astronomers of this period were extremely
important for the role they played in bringing about a shift in the way people viewed
themselves and the universe. Appleyard (1993:30) points out that the `discovery
of the New World introduced the possibility of the radical ignorance into the human
mind, the possibility that there was in infinity for us to know. ' Moreover, it exposed
the weaknesses of all previous models of the universe. Medieval systems of the
universe were extremely complex, but they drew boundaries. Appleyard (1993:32)
suggests that the notion of a heliocentric universe removed the earth from its
privileged place, because by the year 1700, the earth had become only a small part
in an infinite universe. He also implies that Newton's universal laws made God's
presence remote and no longer vital. The repercussions of these changes will be
discussed in the next section.
The spiritually corrosive nature of science is said to be an important by-product of
the scientific revolution. Franklin lye van Bummer states:
Science made the world of spirit ... seem unreliable and dim in comparison with the
material world. In the 17th century, science drove revealed Christianity out of the
physical universe into the region of history and private morals; to an ever growing
number of people in the two succeeding centuries it made religion seem outmoded ... It
changed profoundly man's attitude toward custom and tradition, enabling him to
declare his independence of the past, to look down condescendingly upon the
"ancients" , and to envisage a rosy future.
Appleyard also (1992:9-12) discusses the effects ofscience on modern man's way of
thinking. He suggests that science provides us with many solutions to problems,
but these solutions are never conclusive. Scientists always try to find better
solutions to problems. In his view, it is this tendency that seems to make scientific
knowledge provisional; that is, it is constantly changing as theories come and go.
22 Thomas HARRAN'Hidenori ERA
This characteristic of science has also affected man's spiritual condition. Because
there are few absolutes in science, he is loathe to construct any private absolutes in
public. Since he no longer has any outside order or system to refer to, he can only
resort to making personal moral choices. These choices, however, cannot be made
with total conviction because modern man must conform to the idea that anY moral
choice he makes is merely one choice among countless others. The notion of
absolutes has gradually eroded as people have felt compelled to tolerate all other
notions of truth.
9. Summary of viewpoints
Although Appleyard's argument that the influence of science brought about a
spiritual malaise in the West seems plausible, the zoologist Richard Hawkins claims
that science is not inherently anti-religious because everything that is discovered by
science must be part of God's design. It is argued that scienge and theology have the
same goals in that both seek to discover the truth (Carey, 1997:23). He points out
that science seeks the truth about the physical universe, whereas theology seeks the
truth about God. Although science and theology seem to have irreconcilable
differences, Carey says that theology can be `regarded as a science which is
committed to persistently questioning and reinterpreting the available evidence
about God'. He maintains that the real conflict seems not to be between science and
theology but between science and politics. Carey writes:
.. the warlike and destructive uses to which science has been put have nothing to do
with science: they are the responsibility of politics. He also says that there are
essential differences between science and politics in that politics aims to coerce people
and is concerned with the exercise of power, whereas science seeks knowledge.
The somewhat ill-founded accusations that science has been the cause of modern
man's spiritual malaise and amorality needs to be clarified. Appleyard's contention
that science can tell us little about how we should do things or how we should live is
not entirely convincing. Furthermore, he argues that the overwhelming impact of
science has been the separation of knowledge from value. He contends that the
spiritual vacuum created by science's destruetion of religious foundations has left
modern man in a situation where he is unable to find his bearings because science
can tell us nothing about the meaning, purpose, and significance of life.
In order to narrow the focus of this discussion, it is necessary to examine some of
the arguments against Appleyard's contention that science has brought about a kind
AStudy of the Scientific Revolution 23
of spiritual crisis. Tb objectively respond to his assertions, one needs to define
exactly what science is. Norman Hall provides us with a definition of what science
is in his lecture given to the Atheist Coalition of San Diego. He writes:
People who like to call themselves scientists attempt to contribute to the cooperative
effort of building a scientific picture of the world. They make, collect, and compare
observations; they attempt to judge which of those observations are more 1ikely to be
true; and they endeavor to interpret them in terms of what is, in theirjudgment, the
best currently available model or story, the one that they conclude is most likely to be
true. In doing this, they adopt certain rules and methods, which may change over
time, and which may differ in detail among different areas ofinvestigation. But these
rules, be they called scientific method, procedural safeguards, or professional ethics,
all have the same goal: that of avoiding the common pitfa11 of self-deception.
If this is an accurate description of what scientists do, one can hardly be convinced
that science is amoral and is unable to tell us anything about the meaning, purpose,
and significance of our lives. Hall does, however, admit that deception can occur in
science. He goes on to say:
Deception can arise from premature but honest attempts to judge the value of theories
based on only the limited observations available at the time; from errors ofhaste and
wishfu1 thinking; from the pressures of ideology and politics; from the intoxicating
prospects of the possibility of a new discovery; professional envy and ill-will; and, of
course, the desire for personal success and its subsequent fame and wealth.
Hall points out that perhaps `the most common motivation for self-deception is the
wish for transcendence'. He argues rather ironically as follows:
Scientific knowledge, tied as it is to physical reality, limited by human observation,
shaped by the necessities of written and spoken language, and capable of giving us
only probable answers, is a poor substitute for the Holy Grail ofAbsolute Truth. Wliy
grub in the dirt of the world for information about reality if that reality is only a
refiection of the perfect knowledge of a creator God? Wouldn't it be simpler, more
elegant (and certainly more pious and spiritually sensitive) just to accept the
knowledge that is revealed to us from on high? Afler all, what scientists do learn about
the world is only what God has chosen to reveal to them.
He goes on to argue that it would be impossible to justify doing science if the world
were created and run by a transcendent intelligence. In addition, he suggests that
controlled experiments could not be set up if one starts scientific research from the
assumption that all knowledge about reality is simply a reflection of the perfect
24 Thomas HARRAN'Hidenori ERA
knowledge of God.
The claim that science is devoid of ethical principles, and that it can tell us little
about how we should live does not seem to be a compelling one. The following
quotations from Hall's essay point out the weakness of Appleyard's argument:
In truth, it is impossible to derive "ought" from anything else than what limited
knowledge we do have of what "is." And our knowledge of what "is" must be based
in science. In spite of all of the claims to the contrary, there simply is no other source
of knowledge. It is utterly amazing to me that people continue to believe and claim
that science has nothing to say that could bear upon questions of normative ethics.
Science is, I have claimed, nothing more or less than an open communal process that
attempts to avoid self-deception, and to thereby discover that which is most likely to be
true. If that is anything close to being an accurate description, then what are we
supposed to use as a basis for morals and ethics ifwe reject or ignore science? The only
remaining '`source of knowledge" would have te be some closed-minded, potentially
self-deceptive system of thought characterized by an utter indifference to the
probability that its pronouncements might or might not be consistent with observation
and reason. And from that they want us to build a moral system?
Hall elaborates further by explaining what the essence of science is:
For better or worse, we really have no other choice but science as a basis for ethics --
andI think it is for the better. As Jacob Brunswick pointed out long ago that science
doesn't just suggest an ethical system, it is and has been an ethical system all along.
It is based on the premise that we wi11 take every precaution not to deceive ourselves,
and the promise that we will not intentionally deceive others. That is the scientific
ethic oftruth-telling. What a refreshing possibility as a foundation for all ethics !
In order to conclude the discussion of this paper, it is necessary to summarize
briefly the arguments put forth by various schools ofthought: Appleyard argues that
the growth of science inspired a new vision of the universe, of the world, and of man
that was completely opposed to the old visions. He points out quite emphatically
that the inroads of science have resulted'
in the loss of modern man's sense of self.
He is unable to find meaning and purpose for his life within the facts of the world
because science has taken away his religion which, until the 17th century, had
nurtured this sense and provided meaning for his life. According to Einstein, the
conflict between religion and science is complicated by the fact that while most
people agree on what is meant by science, many people differ on the meaning of
religion. He distinguishes both science and religion as follows:
AStudy of the Scientific Revolution 25
As to science, we may defme it for our purpose as methodical thinking directed toward
fmding regulative connections between our sensual experiences. Science, in the
immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly, means action. It leads to methodical
action if definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and
passing statements ofvalue transcends its domain. As regards religion, on the other
hand, it is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general,
with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting ... Religion is concemed
with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the
individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationships.
Einstein argues that the conflict between science and religion came about because
the mythical or symbolic content of religious traditions came into conflict with
science. This occurs whenever the religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically
fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Galileo's
attempt to convince the authorities of the Catholic Church that the Earth was not
the eenter ofthe universe exemplifies this sort ofconflict. For this audacity, Galileo
came close to death.
Einstein points out that the desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to
form a social or moral conception of God. It is God who protects, disposes, rewards,
and punishes. Hall maintains that a transcendental belief as a cure for fear and
despair began when our forebears were mere hunters. It is his opinion that this
cultural habit has long deceived us. It is our responsibility is to make sense of our
existence, our culture, and our own ethics. Therefore, he thinks that we must build
our own meaning of ethics and give up the belief that God is the source of ethics.
10. Concluding remarks
Fears and criticisms of science have emerged, however, because so many people
have become disillusioned with it. There are concerns about the harmfu1 effects of
technology in society, and the environmental destruction affecting our planet. In
order to calm peoples' fears and worries, scientists need to listen more attentively to
their concerns. Scientists should not forget the Baconian ideal of utility-that
science should be used for the benefit of mankind; that is, to improve society and to
enrich the lives of all people on Earth.
Furthermore, many people have become indifferent to science because they think it
is unable to answer moral and religious questions. According to Hall the tension
between science and religion resulted from excessive zeal and misunderstanding on
both sides. He writes:
26 lhomas HARRAN•Hidenori ERA
Peacefu1 coexistence and even a measure of syncretism are now assumed to be possible
as long as each concedes to the other's authority in their separate worlds of knowledge:
that of matter and facts for science, and that of the spirit and values for religion.
A quotation from Richard S. Westfa11's essay entitled "The Scientific Revolution"
epitomizes the impact of modern science. In his essay, he concludes:
For good and for ill, science stands at the center of every dimension of modern }ife. It
has shaped most of the categories in terms of which we think, and in the process has
frequently subverted humanistic concepts that furnished the sinews of our civilization.
Through its influence on technology, it has helped to lift the burden of poverty from
much of the Western world, but in doing so has accelerated our exploitation of the
world's fmite resources until already, not so long after the birth of modern science, we
fear with good cause their exhaustion. Through its transformation of medicine,
science has removed the constant presence ofillness and pain, but it has also produced
toxic materials that poison the environment and weapons that threaten us with
extinction.
Any attempt to provide a solution to this dilemma might be viewed as somewhat
hubristic. Therefore, I will refer to one of the most famous novels of modern times,
Lord of the Flies, to make some concluding remarks concerning the developments
discussed in this paper. The pervasive infiuence of secularism has made it
increasingly difficult for modern man to experience life in a religious way. The most
significant events of our lives - conception, birth, sickness, death- seemed to have
lost their mystery Modern man finds himselfisolated on an `island', surrounded by
the forces of science and technology, and fanatically hunting for ways to find
solutions to his own social breakdown. One can draw a parallel between our own
plight and that of the boys in Golding's novel. They are fooled into believing that
there is a beast on the island and desperately spend their days hunting it down.
Only one of them realizes that the beast really does not exist on the island but is in
their own hearts. Likewise, modern man is also fooled by a `beast'. He blames
science and technology for the evils ofthe world, but the roots ofthese evils are most
likely due to the use to which he puts science and technology. Golding's book also
calls to mind the so-called "ostrich syndrome." Just as ostriches tend to bury their
heads in the sand when predators approach them, many people prefer to ignore evils
even though they could be avoided by simply changing their patterns of behavior.
AStudy of the Scientific Revolution 27
Bibliography
Internet Sources
TYIer, D. (1994) The Crusading Face ofContemporary Science:
http:/lwww.pages.orglbcsrbcs/054.html (OY08/06)
Hall, N. (1986) Is the War Between Science Over?:
http://www.godless.orgtscilwar-sci.html (OV08/28)
Hall, N. (1998) Godless Science, Godless Ethics:
http:/lwww.Godless.org (06/29/Ol)
Einstein, A. (1954) Religion and Science: Irreconcilable?
http:/lwww.stcloudstate.edu/-lesikar/einstein/irrec.html (OY08/28)
Einstein, A. (1941) Weaning Mankind From the Personal God:
http:/lwww.stcloudstate.edul--lesikar/einstein/religion3.html (OV08/28)
Einstein, A. (1954) Religion and Science:
http:/lwww.stcloudstate.edul--lesikarleinstein/relig.html (OV08/28)
Yamasaki, M. The Scientific Revolution in Pre-inodern Europe I (26/09/OO)
Yamasaki, M. The Scientific Revolution in Pre-modern Europe III (26/09/OO
Hooker, R. (1996) The Scientific Revolution: (10/10/OO)
Kreis, S. (2000) The Medieval Sythesis and the Secularization of Human Knowledge: (10/26100)
Schmiechen, J (1999) "The Scientific Revolution & Enlightment":
http://wwvv.fresno.k12.ca.us/schools/s090Aloyd/scientific-revolution-&-en.htm
Hodges, M. (2000) The Origins of the Scientific Revolution:
http:1/www.newgenevacenter.orglsci-theo/origins2.htm
Books
Appleyard, Bryan. UnderstAnding the Present. London: Pan Books Limited,1993
Butterfield, Herbert. The Origins ofModern Science. London: Bell & Sons Ltd,1957
Boorstin, Daniel. The Discovers. New York: Random House,1983
Carey, John. Eyewitness to Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1995
Mason,'Stephen. A History ofthe Seiences. New York: Macmillan General Reference,1962
Roberts, J.M. Histoiy ofthe Wortd. London: Penguin Books, 1990