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

Another factor that supports the stand that impetus of science was a revolution is that there were a significant number of discoveries that challenged and thus uprooted the assumptions and beliefs of the time. For example, the replacement of the Aristotelian theory that matter was made up the elements earth, water, fire, air and aether with the idea that matter was made of particles, and that the chemical composition of matter was much more complex. This was a major shift in the science we now know as chemistry. Also, following the revolution, Copernicus’ heliocentric model replaced the geocentric model, which was best known at the time as Ptolemy’s model, and this was a fundamental shift in astronomical science. This is especially so since the geocentric model had been the assumption that was held as true for the past two thousand or so years, and accepted by all as common sense, especially since Ptolemy’s model worked in predicting the position of the planets, even though the fundamental assumption was false.  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. In the case of Andreas Vesalius, who is famous for correcting the previous anatomical teachings of Galen on the account that they were based on animal dissection rather than the human body, and proceeding to conduct observations by dissecting human corpses, it can be said that his works had to be based primarily on Galen’s in the first place, which laid the foundations to his research. Such examples of notable scientists of the period make us doubt that there truly was a revolution, since such developments, largely built upon the earlier teachings of the ancient scientists, are not so much of significant changes if viewed in this perspective. In many cases, while an earlier idea may be completely refuted by the later scientist, the scientists may have used the original idea as a basis for critiquing, especially in Newton’s case where he develops his law of inertia by revising the Aristotelian theory of motion. By such an argument, the impetus of science of that period was no longer a revolution, but just a period of increased interest and development in science, rather than significant change in the ideas.

In conclusion, there are two opposing stands regarding the existence of a true revolution during the period of impetus of science. The continuity thesis suggests that many of the supposedly new ideas introduced during the period were actually borrowed, adapted or inspired by existing ideas from the ancient texts, and thus there was no true revolution. However, I support the stand that there was actually a revolution, simply because there was in fact a marked change in the ideas. While these ideas may have been adapted or even borrowed, most of the new ideas were significant enough to impact almost the entire of a single field in modern science, such as the discovery that matter was made of particles is the fundamental concept that laid the foundations of modern day chemistry. The focus of the word revolution is such that the change was of a large scale, and this was especially the case. The fact that ideas were borrowed from the past is insignificant compared to the complete new perspectives that were offered. 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.