What was so revolutionary about the Scientific Revolution?
Konrad Edward Urban
University of Durham
WHAT WAS SO
REVOLUTIONARY
ABOUT
THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION?
word count: 2000
What was so revolutionary about the Scientific Revolution?
Konrad Edward Urban
University of Durham
INTRODUCTION
“Multi pertransibunt et augebitur scientia”. Although this is an essay on science, I believe this
quote from the Book of Daniel (12:4) translating into “Many will pass through and knowledge will be
increased” is highly appropriate. Francis Bacon used this as a motto on the foreword title page for Novum
Organum, a revolutionary book on the philosophy of science, from which the Baconian method stems. I
would like to divide this motto into two parts “Multi petransibunt ...” (“Many will pass”) and “... augebitur
scientia” (“... knowledge will grow”) to show the growth of understanding and its relation to revolutions.
“Revolution” can be understood as “a dramatic and wide-reaching change in conditions, attitudes,
or operation” (Oxford Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary Online, Retrieved 1 December, 2012, from
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/revolution.) and its etymology lies in the political use of
the word. “Dramatic” and “wide-reaching” seem to be questions of quantitative nature – how dramatic and
how wide-reaching does it have to be to classify as a revolution? – and not a question of the qualitative
difference, the essential property of a change to be revolutionary. Revolution requires “change”
– a
revolution in science is seen as progressive, even if it involves destruction of previously held beliefs. (This
may suggests that the analysis of progress is non-teleological.) The progress of science is a very wide and
entangled topic.
The title suggests a historical nature of the Scientific Revolution through the use of the past tense;
it assumes that the Scientific Revolution has been completed. Through the use of a singular noun and
capitalisation, it also suggests that it was unique. The Scientific Revolution referred to is the era that began
with the end of the Renaissance and ended with the advent of Romanticism. Nicolaus Copernicus' work
“De revolutionibus orbium coelestium” is often used (Repcheck 2007) to demarcate the beginning of the
Scientific Revolution. Copernicus revolutionised the concepts regarding our place in the solar system,
shifting from geocentrism to heliocentrism. The term was coined by Alexandre Koyré in 1933 to refer to
sum of major advancements made in the natural sciences, medicine and mathematics. Notable concepts
are: atomism, inertia, circulatory system, scientific method, Newtonian physics, calculus, mechanics,
engines, electricity. It may seem that because mankind's sum of knowledge grew so suddenly and so
immensely, this era deserves a unique and capitalised signifier: the Scientific Revolution.
2 of 8
What was so revolutionary about the Scientific Revolution?
Konrad Edward Urban
University of Durham
“… AUGEBITUR SCIENTIA”
“… knowledge will grow”. Revolutions mean progress and a somewhat naïve but a very common
understanding of scientific progress can be likened to the cartographic work of an explorer, who unveils
more and more territory carefully filling empty spots on a map. This suggests our knowledge approaching
truth as a (injective) function of time (or intensity of investigations or other such variables) and that this
is the progress of science. This way, progress happens through accumulation of understanding of reality.
Kuhn (1962) forms an approach that avoids the notion of truth and reality altogether. In his The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a book that fuelled immense discussion on the topic, he distinguishes
between three phases of progress: pre-paradigm science (or pre-science), normal science and revolutionary
science. His notion of paradigm, a “universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide
model problems and solutions for a community of researchers” (1962, p. 10). Normal science occurs when
a paradigm has been established and can be likened to puzzle-solving, because there is a clear model of
how to solve further problems. This normal science can be likened to a guild of craftsmen, it is quite
mechanistic, there is no competition and progress is cumulative.
Nevertheless, a built-up of anomalies (measured values that do not empirically correspond to their
theoretically expected counter-parts) will occur and they will be eventually "the tradition-shattering
complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science" (Kuhn 1996 p.6). A revolution occurs
whenever sufficiently many anomalies build up, so that attention is given to the need of establishing a new
framework or paradigm. During this revolutionary science, there is no consensus on standards, theoretical
understanding, observation or goals (Kuhn 2000a).
Popper (1996 p.12) on the other hand has set two conditions for progress: a) a progressive new
theory “must logically conflict with its predecessor and overthrow it” and b) “a new theory, however
revolutionary, must always be able to explain fully the success of its predecessor”. The consequence of (b)
is that understanding is always increased and there is no discontinuity in this, even if there are times
without consensus.
3 of 8
What was so revolutionary about the Scientific Revolution?
Konrad Edward Urban
University of Durham
“MULTI PERTRANSIERUNT ...”
“Many have passed ...” and the paradigms changed with them. Bernal (1937, p.58) characterised
the Scientific Revolution that began with Copernicus as “a scientific revolution which lets scholars look at
the world in a different light. Religion, superstition, and fear were replaced by reason and knowledge”.
Indeed, there were major conflicts between clerics and many scientists. Famously, Galileo Galilei was
imprisoned for his heliocentric views that were in strong opposition to those of the Church (‘Galileo
Galilei’,
Encyclopædia
Britannica
Online,
Retrieved
1
December,
2012,
from
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/224058/Galileo). But to draw such a strong opposition, to
create such a dichotomy between Church and science, is historically unjustified. The question has become
strongly politicised after the Marxist anti-religious waves and are well-exemplified by statements such as
Bernal's.
It must be understood that before wide-spread secularisation took place, the Church was a center
of social life in its entirety. The Church provided medical care through hospitals attached to monasteries
(Watson 2006). The Church provided social care through voluntary monetary redistribution (alms). The
Church provided a platform for the exchange of ideas through monasteries and all ancient universities had
strong ties to the Church. Arguably, most scientific progress in the European middle-ages came through
the Church.
Many science revolutionaries, e.g. Bacon, Brahe, Copernicus, Descartes, Galileo, Kepler, Leibniz,
Newton and Pascal, were believers. It could be argued that they were so oppressed, that they could not
admit not being believers. Nevertheless, this does not make their work in any way being directed against
the Church to overthrow the paradigms established by the Church. It was the Church that was inherently
linked with science. This tradition can be traced back to the beginnings of Christianity, but was very
eminent in the middle-ages, when Thomas Aquinas, William of Occam, Albert Magnus and many more
shaped the scientific paradigms of the time. Bernal's view therefore is wrong, the Church could not be
overthrown, because it was largely the Church that fostered science.
It is a common intellectual climate, paradigm or zeitgeist that plays a major role in progress. It
would have been unlikely that Leibniz creates his Leibniz wheel or other mechanical calculators if he had
not built on Pascal's work ((‘Calculator’, Encyclopædia Britannica Online, Retrieved 1 December, 2012,
from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/89155/calculator) which was in turn based on
astrological clocks of various kinds. A more modern example: Newton's theory of gravity used to be
4 of 8
What was so revolutionary about the Scientific Revolution?
Konrad Edward Urban
University of Durham
regarded as one of the most rigid scientific facts as it had been tested hundreds of thousands of times. This
theory was then shaken by Newcombe's discovery of anomalies of the motion of Mercury, which changed
the intellectual climate and later lead to Einstein's theory of gravitation. Without this common intellectual
background, there would be no room for Einstein's theory (Boni 1975) nor would there be any stimulus to
embark on this question.
Through a better understanding of how ideas form, the dramatic property of alleged revolutions
can be assessed. The thought experiment of imagining a creature that does not incorporate any thing or
part of a thing that was experienced before (which is arguably impossible) shows to what great extend
our intellectual and experiential background defines our ideas. I think that the history of any particular
idea is highly entangled and is by far less dramatic and epiphanic than sometimes imagined. Scientific
advancement is inherently based on a common intellectual platform that stimulates and defines the
problems, desiderata of a given paradigm. This explains why discoveries and inventions often happen in a
parallel and independent way.
I am therefore by far more inclined to a thesis of historical continuity, the idea that there was
neither a single Revolution nor any unique sudden and dramatic jumps in the development of science. It
would be however against justice not to explain some of the tremendous implications of the scientists of
the capitalised Scientific Revolution: Many fundamental views of that time were shaken by a wave of new
concepts.
One example is Aristotelian physics which was abandoned in favour of Newtonian physics. Before
the Newtonian framework, scientists were immensely interested in teleologies (the study of the definite
goals of things), natural motion of the elements and their weight (earth, water, air, fire), continuity of
matter (matter being infinitely divisible). They would explain hot air rising by attributing the element of
fire to it which was seen as going outward from the centre of the universe; a stone would fall, because the
element of earth approaches the centre of the universe. The Newtonian framework of attributing mass
and weight as a force to objects, had much higher explanatory value. It also had a better degree of
predictability, e.g. objects of various density falling with the same velocity (an empty ball in an
Aristotelean framework would tend be slower than a full marble ball, because air due to its intrinsic
properties necessarily goes up).
The new framework changed the way the world is perceived immensely. Nevertheless, Newton
himself saw his own work as a re-evaluation of Aristotle's heritage. Newton mentions a similar concept to
5 of 8
What was so revolutionary about the Scientific Revolution?
Konrad Edward Urban
University of Durham
his First Law of Motion “Why a body once moved should come to rest anywhere no one can say […] it must
be moved indefinitely [Physics 4.8.215a19-22]” (Waterfield 1999) and so Newton, often being credited as
one of the most revolutionary of thinkers to did not consider himself to be so revolutionary. (As a side note,
Cohen (1985) sets numerous necessary conditions for a change to be counted as a revolutionary, including
the condition that the revolutionaries consider themselves to be part of a revolution.)
I am inclined to support Hannam's (2011, p. 352) view that the term “the Scientific Revolution”
“does nothing more than reinforce the error that before Copernicus nothing of any significance to science
took place”. Historians such as Haskins (1927) have described 12th Century Enlightenment, showing the
immense progress in understanding that happened in the High Middle-Age: windmills, paper, spinning
wheels, magnetic compasses, eyeglasses are only a few expressions of the scientific understanding of that
era. There were many more Enlightenments, Scientific Revolutions and so on in the past and also in
different places.
The theory behind the scientific method was also readily discussed. Here is a quote from one of my
favourite philosophers: “Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a
principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in
astronomy the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the
sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were
sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them”. Clearly, Aquinas (13th century) in his
opus magnum, Summa Theologicae (1981, I, q.32), shows understanding of empirical verification
(“sensible appearances”) of a hypothesis (“already established principle”) and the passing and going of
theories (“some other theory might explain [movements]”).
I suspect that attributing such a weight to that one period has perhaps to do with telescoping the
detailed developments. Other potential revolutions date to far back to be very meaningful to our
understanding of the history of ideas: the framework which puts the Enlightenment at the centre of our
civilisation provides great fuel for the advocation of the Scientific Revolution. Additionally, the further
back we look, the more we employ synthesis: the Interwar Period (1918-39) may seem like a historical
universe to explore, whereas the entire 7th century may seem like a short and insignificant period to the
layman. Probably, the amount of papers written in Newton’s times was proportionately greater than in,
say, the 7th century, but it is a matter of the intellectual background that provided stimuli for research, a
fruitful paradigm of the normal science in Kuhnian terms, that is necessary. Because the history of ideas
6 of 8
What was so revolutionary about the Scientific Revolution?
Konrad Edward Urban
University of Durham
accumulates, there were more riddles with more frameworks to work in later in history. This growth must
have been a gradual (perhaps roughly exponential) change then.
It seems to be that the time between Copernicus and Newton, although highly fruitful, may not
have been so revolutionary as we like to think about it. I must agree with Shapin's (1996) statement that
"There was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution”. Since scientific progress is based on an escape from
paradigms, which form a common intellectual background, I think it lacks the dramatic property required
for a change to be counted as a proper revolution. Also, there was nothing to purposefully overthrow.
Although Kuhn's contribution gives a lot of insight into the sociology of science, I think it vastly
overemphasizes the dramatic property of paradigm shifts, especially the post-Renaissance Revolution.
Scientific revolutions (note the plural) happen all the time and this is why the term loses its valour through
overuse. I agree with Popper’s view that in scientific progress, understanding (supposed knowledge that
proves to be untrue is another matter) is never lost in progress as a new theory will always have to
explain phenomena explained by the one it replaces. Therefore, many have passed (and many will pass)
and so our understanding continuously increases: “Multi pertransibunt et augebitur scientia”.
7 of 8
What was so revolutionary about the Scientific Revolution?
Konrad Edward Urban
University of Durham
BIBIOGRAPHY
Aquinas, T. 1981, Summa Theologica, Ave Maria Press, London.
Boni, H. 1975, What is Progress in Science?, Problems of Scientific Revolution: The Herbert Spencer
Lectures (ed. Harre, R.), Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Bernal, J. D. 1937, Dialectical Materialism and Modern Science. Science & Society 2(1), Guilford
Publications, New York.
Cohen, I. B., 1985, Revolution in Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Hannam, J. 2011, The Genesis of Science, Regnery Publising, Washington.
Haskins, Ch. 1927, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Kuhn, T., 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kuhn, 2000, “What Are Scientific Revolutions?”, in The Road Since Structure , J. Conant and J. Haugeland
(eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press (a collection of Kuhn's last philosophical essays)), pp. 1332.
Popper, K. 1996, The Myth of Framework, Routledge, London.
Watson, S. 2006, The Origins of the English Hospital. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth
Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Repcheck, J. 2007, Copernicus' Secret: How the Scientific Revolution Began, Simon &Schuster, New York.
Shapin, S. 1996, The Scientific Revolution, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Waterfield, R. 1999, Physics (ed. Bostock, D.), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
8 of 8