• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How far do you agree that the impetus (momentum, thrust) of science experienced in Europe between 1500 and 1700 was indeed a revolution?

Extracts from this document...


How far do you agree that the impetus (momentum, thrust) of science experienced in Europe between 1500 and 1700 was indeed a revolution? The scientific revolution refers to the period between the 16th to 18th centuries in Europe, during the period of the Renaissance, where there was a large change in the field of science. It was started when many ancient texts were discovered after the fall of Constantinople, and together with the invention of printing, Europe experiences a revitalisation of scientific research. Defining a revolution as a dramatic and fundamental change, I do agree that this impetus of science was in fact a scientific revolution, since there was a significant change in scientists' approach to science, along with the change of fundamental ideas in science. The main reason why the impetus of science can be considered to be a revolution is because of the drastic change in the approach to science, or in the emergence of empiricism, which refers to scientific methodology most widely accepted in the modern context. It is a fundamental shift in the scientific method since prior to this period, the Aristotelian approach to obtaining science was to observe natural phenomena and based on deductive reasoning, form conclusions. It was only during the 16th century, that a scientists and philosopher named Francis Bacon specifically penned the empirical tradition. Thus the nature of obtaining scientific knowledge changed to a method where proper data and evidence obtained was used in the context of an experiment to form conclusions. ...read more.


It can be seen that these discoveries that have been proven to be true based on modern technology, are not only further developments in science, but actually fundamental changes in the widely accepted ideas. Such mindset shifts mark a major change during the period, uprooting many ideas that were originally thought to be true by the Greeks, thus showing that the period was truly a revolution. However, it can also be said that the impetus of science was not truly a revolution based on the fact that many scientists used the knowledge that was written down in the ancient texts by the Greek. This brings in the argument that while there was significant change in the ideas, many of the ideas were brought about by either adding to what was already understood, or using the original knowledge as a framework for critiquing and thus come up with new ideas, thus the argument that there is actually no significant change, but a review and continuity of earlier known knowledge. In many cases, scientists of the revolution had read the ancient antecedents of their own ideas, and adapted them to their own use. For example, it is accepted that Copernicus followed the outline and method used by Ptolemy, and adapted the geocentric model of the Maragheh in a heliocentric context when constructing his model of the universe. Newton had also admitted in a revised edition of his Principia, that his laws of gravity and his first law of motion were adapted from the writings of other historical figures. ...read more.


In this way, the origin of the ideas, as long as the new idea is significantly different from the original (flawed) understanding, becomes irrelevant. Even as the two perspectives are in conflict if using the extent of change in knowledge as a factor, the primary factor, I believe, that can be used to justify that the period was indeed a revolution is the emergence of empiricism. It is difficult to fully justify the extent at which specific ideas and findings during the period could be considered revolutionary, but it is easy to see that during the period, the fundamental method or approach to science was changed, or least used by scientists to an extent never seen in European science before the scientific revolution. It is on the basis that the philosophy and methodology of science itself has changed, that we can consider the period as revolutionary to the practice of science. In fact, empiricism, what we know now more as the scientific method, has been become so well accepted by modern institutions that we can begin to doubt the extent at which the people who developed ideas and obtained knowledge of the natural world before the rise of empiricism, could be considered to be truly practicing science. As such, this paradigm shift is the crucial factor is enabling us to understand that the impetus of science was indeed a scientific revolution, for the change was science in itself, not just scientific knowledge. ?? ?? ?? ?? Chow Keng Ji (3A) ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Other Historical Periods section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Other Historical Periods essays

  1. How the Inca adapted and strived in their environment

    Gold was a resource mined from the rugged mountain environment. In the palace there were many rooms for the Inca to entertain. Large feasts were prepared to celebrate many events including weddings. Marriage was very important for the Inca just like the modern world.

  2. Robespierre fell when the Terror had outlived its usefulness- How far do you agree ...

    Many were being sent to the guillotine, and events such as the Great Terror in Paris in 1794 led to many ordinary Parisians and indeed deputies becoming sickened with how extreme the terror had become. Many deputies of the plain now wanted to see an end to the terror, now

  1. To what extent was the Northern Renaissance influenced by the Italian Renaissance

    Durer's introduction of classical motifs into Northern art, through his knowledge of Italian artists have secured his reputation as one of the most important figures of the Northern Renaissance. Durer learnt much from his experience with Bellini in Venice and developed the exact proportions of bodies that can be shown in his 'virgin and child'.

  2. Early Modern Europe and the Scientific Revolution

    People in the middle ages, followed the teaching of Ptolemy. The Ptolemaic system put the earth in the center of everything, as opposed to orbiting the sun. This was accepted by all of Europe, and especially the Christian church.

  1. Civilisation. In this essay, we shall attempt to examine the earliest examples of ...

    rise of what is known as the Uruk period; whether this was an outside invasion replacing the people of 'Ubaid, or a natural progression of the society itself is open to debate. The Uruk period (c4000BC-c3100BC) is notable for the beginnings of monumental architecture - the first proto-ziggurats - as

  2. Research Paper; The Important Scientific Discoveries of the Renaissance: Medicine

    as the "twelfth-century Renaissance", which lead up to the Renaissance in the following century. This was when a population increase, economic growth, urbanization, the development of more "sophisticated" forms of secular government and administration, the growth of professional specialization and of occupations requiring literacy, the multiplication of schools, and the enlargement of philosophical, scientific, and technical learning were mixed.

  1. In the context of India in the 1840s to 1947, how far can independence ...

    feeling that British respect might be rewarded, but he only recruited one hundred men, as thousands hid away from him and he lost much support. They questioned the sincerity of his belief in non-violence, even Gandhi?s friend Andrews admitted that, ?personally I have never been able to reconcile this with

  2. How far do you agree that by 1763 the ties between Britain and the ...

    The ties between Britain and the American colonies were, at least on the surface, without fault by 1763. The colonies enjoyed the benefits of the Mercantilist system which helped them to develop. Also Britain and the colonies had successfully united to defeat the French.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work