Scientific Revolution?

Question

How did the new developments in scientific though from Copernicus to Newton create a new idea of the universe and humanity's place in it?

Answer 1

i'll try to be brief

Prior to Copernicous-Newton, the idea was that the universe, and all things in it were created by god and therefore were in all revolving in a circular motion with the earth at the center. The idea was that a circle is perfectly round and God would not create anything that wasn't perfect.

The scientists, through observation, discovered that that in fact that objects in space did not revolve in a perfect circle but in an elliptical pattern and they argued that the earth was not the center of the universe but the sun was.

The concept of scientific observation is important because, prior to that concept, it was the Church who tried to control the thoughts and ideas. The concept of obeservation challenged the churches authority and therefore, the authority of the monarchs since monarchs believed that it was god who placed them in thier kingship (idea of the 'Divine Right'). If science began to challenge the church and church docterine the monarchs feared the people would eventually challenge the rule/role of the monarchy which is what happened during the Enlightenement.

Furthermore, advances in technology (printing press, improvements in literacy due to vernacular languages) made the ideas of copernicus-newton available to the masses - people could think for themselves (instead of havign the church tell them what to think)

hope this answers your question

Answer 2

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/timeline/haymarket.html
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/haymarket.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Riot
http://wais.stanford.edu/Politics/us_chicagohaymarket.htm



I fully expected someone to use this to bash Christianity and advance the notion that the development of science was an "escape" from supposed anti-scientific and anti-intellectual.

I know that this is a popular understanding (more below on how this view took hold), but the facts are quite otherwise.

In fact, there is a consensus among historians of science which is quite at odds with the POPULAR view on the "Dark Ages" and the emergence of science. The truth is, those who laid the foundations for scientific discovery (indeed the very "scientific method") and many of the early pioneers of science were very much driven BY their Christian faith!

Rodney Stark has attempted to draw this picture for a popular audience. Here's a clip from one of his articles:

"Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a “Dark Ages” after the “fall” of Rome. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called “Scientific Revolution” of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology.

"Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God’s handiwork. My studies show that the “Enlightenment” was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like Voltaire, Diderot, and Gibbon, who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise--a pattern that continues today. I find that through the centuries (including right up to the present day), professional scientists have remained about as religious as the rest of the population--and far more religious than their academic colleagues in the arts and social sciences."

"False Conflict" by Rodney Stark
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17713/article_detail.asp

One key piece of all this wasthe international NETWORKING of scholars with the help of the university system -- a Christian invention of the late 'Middle Ages' [improperly dubbed "the Dark Ages" by later critics who thought more of themselves than of the forebears to whom they were indebted -- 'the giants on whose shoulders they stood' (to roughly quote Francis Bacon borrowing from a medieval scholastic!)].

--See chapter 2 of Rodney Stark's *For the Glory of God*
(In this chapter Stark also provides a survey of leading 16th to 17th century scientists, noting that a great many of them were more than usually 'devout')

-----------------------------------------

So it turns out that the "scientific revolution" --the culmination of these earlier trends-- despite all its contributions, did NOT provide as fundamentally different a view of "man's place in the universe" as the popular view thinks. Medieval scholars did NOT think that man was "the center of the universe". Those who think so have mistakenly deduced it from the Ptolemaic model.... read people of the period and you'll find this was not their view of man. (Incidentally, newer models of heliocentrism only really succeeded after shedding the idea that the heavens were perfect so all must be spherical. But this is a PLATONIC ideal, and it was Christians who overcame it.)

Answer 3

This revolution is very physical and effected every aspect
of humanity. but this is silent transformation.