Scientific Revolutions

The natural sciences have a lot in common with Pandora’s box. Both contain any number of wonders and possibilities within them, the promise of untold riches and benefits just as great as the threat of disaster and pain. The fear of catastrophe can keep the scientific box shut, and science may not progress at all. For this reason, scientists should only be held responsible for the application of their discoveries to an extent that does not give them blame for the negative. For should scientists be blamed for the tragedies that result from their work, not only do they become a scapegoat for the abusers of their knowledge, but the process of scientific discovery itself becomes hindered by this fear of the unknown.

The Scientific Revolution was when modern science was essentially established, which came along with the major scientific discoveries took place at the time. Some major scientists that contributed to this major era include Nicholas Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo Galilei, and Isaac Newton. The scientific revolution took place following the Renaissance, from the mid-1500’s until about 1700. This revolution took place throughout Europe. This occurred because, following the Renaissance and the reformation, people became very curious and wanted to understand how the Earth worked. It was almost as if, being that this occurred after the reformation, that they wanted to either confirm or refute the church’s claims. The significance of the scientific revolution was one of great proportions, it changed mankind’s understanding the importance of science, and of how the Earth and solar system function.

The most famous female astronomer in Germany was Maria Winkelmann. She received training in astronomy from a self-taught astronomer. When she married Gottfried Kirch, Prussia's foremost astronomer, she became his assistant and began to pratice astronomy. Winkelmann made some orginal contributions to astronomy, inclunding the discovery of a assistans astronomer at the Berlin Academy. Marie Winkelmann was highly qualified, but as a women with no university degree she was denied the post. Members on the Berlin Academy feared that they would set bad example by hiring a

The scientists get entangled in the politics of the time which in turn have repercussions. Scientist

The society that we live in is transitioning before our eyes. Therefore, it is easy to assume that society has been undergoing many changes throughout the years with the most popular movements influencing the society the most. As seen in European history it shows that a spoken word from someone such as Martin Luther can be the catalyst that brings changes to the society. In the quote by Adolf Hitler states that “All great movements are popular movements” is partially true because most great movements were not popular movements. The Scientific Revolution was not popular during the 16th century because not everyone knew that it was occurring. During the 16th century the Protestant Reformation was not a popular movement because it was only a

The Scientific Revolution was a period in 17th century Europe in which people were trying to explore the “unknowable”. Scientists, philosophers, physicist, and others were trying to understand what could be measured and observable. During this time, many ideas and discoveries were made. The scientific method, physics, and alchemy were discovered. René Descarte believed that everything through formulas, they only needed to be discovered, and “invented” deductive reasoning - or using a formula to predict a phenomenon. Francis Bacon that people should be able to carefully observe and notice how things worked. He also came up with inductive reasoning - using the phenomenon to predict the formula - and the empirical method - this involved gathering

One drawback of science is that it cannot prove or disprove some beliefs, and even if scientists took a valid approach to verifying these beliefs, some people would disregard them. Also, scientists will sometimes disagree on the assumptions that justify conclusions.

Science is the knowledge gained by a systematic study, knowledge which then becomes facts or principles. In the systematic study; the first step is observation, the second step hypothesis, the third step experimentation to test the hypothesis, and lastly the conclusion whether or not the hypothesis holds true. These steps have been ingrained into every student of science, as the basic pathway to scientific discovery. This pathway holds not decision as to good or evil intention of the experiment. Though, there are always repercussions of scientific experiments. They range from the most simplistic realizations of the difference between acid and water to the principle that Earth is not the center of

     Science is and has become a necessity to know just to keep up with the tremendous advancements of today and tomorrow. Basic things, such as how the universe was suspected to be started or who Ptolemy and Galileo were and what they did are just things that need to be known to fully understand what is happening in the world around you. These things are what you need to know, if you’re a scientists, to a grocery shop bagger.

in the daily lives of people, scientists have come great lengths to understanding the science

Before the Scientific Revolution began to take shape around the year 1550, the world of science was exceedingly narrow and thought to be known. The scientific views of the pre-scientific revolution stem back even further than the popular Aristotelian era of science. Hippocrates contributed greatly to the field of science, especially in the field of medicine. It was during his years of medical studies that Hippocrates theorized the “Four Temperaments”. This theory hypothesized that there are four bodily fluids in a human that affect that human’s personality and behavior. The bodily fluids were blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. These four temperaments were also to have been thought to be linked or associated with a vital force. If these bodily fluids, known as humors, became imbalanced then it is said to have an effect on a person’s mood, emotions, or behaviors. The vital force which was tied to these temperaments was said to be a type of force that had no connection to physical or chemical forces. This unknown force, although unnamed during its period of belief, was a philosophical principle known as Vitalism. Vitalism had been the belief and basis of scientific method for years before Hippocrates. Vitalism is the life-giving force that enables living organisms to function. It was thought that an organism contains a form of energy within which completes and animates it. Up until the start of the scientific revolution, vitalism had been the foundation of biological

In my essay I plan to argue that Thomas Kuhn was incorrect when he presented his theory that no paradigm is better than any other paradigm and how he believed that people who occupy different paradigms are in different universes, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I believe that there is no valid deductive or inductive support for incommensurability, there are examples against it throughout the history of science that do not exhibit the discontinuity and replacement of paradigms, as Kuhn’s incommensurability thesis predicts, but rather continuity and supplementation. If this is correct, then there are no compelling epistemic reasons to believe that Kuhn’s incommensurability thesis is true or probable. The argument that the point of the same kind terms changes or ceases from one theoretical context to another, it does not fundamentally mean that these two abstract frameworks are taxonomically or methodologically incommensurable. Kuhn’s theory takes a relativist stance and uses it to make all theories and paradigms equal with none being better than the other. This poses a major problem because the hope of scientific research is best said as “For a realist conception of scientific progress also wishes to assert that, by and large, later science improves on earlier science, in particular by approaching closer to the truth.” This means that all realist scientist hope that by advancing our scientific knowledge we will eventually come closer to the truth about

Scientific revolution is historically the changing of traditionally accepted knowledge to a new thought that is accepted. The nature of scientific knowledge that has been changed and accepted from tradition, is the meaning of a scientific revolution.

Every major theme of science is built upon a foundation where later discoveries become building blocks upon the foundation. Every once in a while, an idea that is more accurate will arise, and it will create a scientific revolution and replace the foundation so that a new “structure” can be built. This kind of paradigm shift has occurred numerous times in history and many speculate it will happen again as more scientists research epigenetics. This theory takes root in the idea that change in gene expression (not the gene itself) can be triggered by external forces (i.e. environment), and said change can be inherited. Although many argue that epigenetics will cause a scientific revolution as the antithesis to Darwinian evolution, people are not taking into account that it can be integrated into the current framework. Research by Heijmans et al., Skinner et al., and Joubert et al. have shown that change in gene expression (also referred to as epigenetic mutation) is not only a crucial facet of evolution, but is also similar to genetic mutation and thus able to work in tandem with Darwinian evolution.

As people, we come with earlier knowledge and understandings on subjects and topics of study, “Science” being one of them. We make presumptions, based on either reasonable evidence or that our thoughts and ideas are known as true by others. Through this we have come to understand and define science as its aims, leaving its definition, whether consciously or unconsciously, unchallenged. We have taken advantage of the label that we have set for science, as well as its goals, and failed to look at them further.