Did the Scientific Revolution of the 17th Century give birth to the modern world?

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

In the late sixteenth and throughout the seventeenth century, scientists changed the in way they understood the world. Innovations in scientific methodology, language and interpretation caused a shift from traditional scientific values to a radically different approach to the natural World. This period came to be known as the Scientific Revolution.

As we shall see, the Scientific Revolution had consequences far outside the Lab. The implications were felt in politics, economics, and religion: the cornerstones of Society were shaken to the core by an emergent philosophy: the Philosophy of Modern Science.

Any revolution aspires to overthrow a ruling regime, so what the Scientific Revolution trying to achieve? How was nature understood prior to the seventeenth century?

Scientific reasoning was based mostly on the teachings of the Bible and the Ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Briefly, the teachings of Christianity stressed the idea of God the Creator. Natural phenomena could be explained as the will of God. The doctrine of Divine creation dictated to scientists the terms in which they reported their findings.

Complementary to this was the Aristotelian view of the world. Aristotle advocated a naturalistic approach to the world. Objects in nature had a purpose for living – a spirit that typifies their behaviour. For example, plants were thought to grow upwards to be closer to God and the elements (air, water, fire and earth) find their ‘natural place’ in the cosmos. These examples seem alien to our culture; to contemporary philosophers these beliefs were not challenged because no point of reference existed to oppose these ideals. To the protagonists of the Scientific Revolution, there was no logic to the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

One such scientist was the Italian, Galileo Galilei . In the early 1600’s, Galileo took observations of the sun and noticed spots on the surface: imperfections. He interpreted his observations as proof that the sun is subject to identical flaws as the Earth. His conclusions were contradictory to the Aristotelian foundation that

“Celestial bodies… are immaculately and immutably perfect” (Shapin p17)

Galileo was aware of the implications of his work, but instead of shying away from away from a confrontation with ‘The Establishment’ he argued that,

“It is simply illegitimate to take the Sun’s perfection as an undoubted premise in physical argument.”

For the revolutionaries the only acceptable premise was fact. From these facts, universal laws could be derived. These laws removed from science the ‘aura’ of nature and replaced it with the mechanised principles of Man.

A feature of the new approach was the power that it offered individual knowledge gatherers. Authority shifted from the ancient texts to the modern thinkers. Progressive qualities can be said to exist in the new science. These qualities lay in the ability of observers to alter existing laws or invent new ones, based on their knowledge and experiments. This departure from institutional authority to individual autonomy was a distinct element of Western development for several hundred years.

The newly acquired ability of scientists to alter interpretations of the world was reflected political philosophy of the day. Observing that scientists were free to govern themselves, many argued that populations should be the masters of their destiny. Those capable of wielding political power moved from the institutions of the monarchy and the aristocracy to the people. Democracy and self-determination have their origins in the scientific revolution.

A result of the Scientific Revolution was a vast increase in the understanding of physical, biological and chemical disciplines. Knowledge gained from these experiments contributed to the tools of the Industrial Revolution (Cohen, 1985). To discuss the social consequences of the Industrial revolution would require more space than is permissible here. However, it is fair to say that the urban population exploded, changing the fabric of society in the industrialised nations.

Another consequence of the Industrial Revolution was the new breed of wealthy citizens it spawned – the capitalists. In the modern world, economic power rests firmly with the capitalist nations. In this way, world thinking can be traced (albeit indirectly) back to the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century.

At the time, the Scientific Revolution was seen as a challenge to the Church. Scientists began to question the logic of God the Creator, and unable to counter these challenges, the absolute power of the Church was destroyed.

In conclusion, the Scientific Revolution had a broader impact than at first you might expect. The consequences of events in the seventeenth century can still be felt today, shaping and sometimes dictating the ways of the modern world. However, any society is an amalgamation of progressive development and understanding. The Scientific revolution forms just one part of the development of modern society. To claim that it gave birth to the modern world would be denying other factors their just place.