Scientific Revolution

1. Scientific Revolution
Nothing seems to generate as much controversy as having historians decide whether events
actually were a revolution. The very term is defined and redefined to allow or disallow as to the
author's predilection. So how does a mere student defend against Steven Shapin's provocative
claim: "There was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution, and this is a book about it..."? So
great is this claim that Professor Daniel Garber begins his lecture with it and Marcelo Dascal and
Victor D Boantza use it to start their book's introduction , apart from so many writers seem to wish
that they had thought of that phrase themselves, it does highlight the problem of whether it can be
called a revolution. My view is that one must compare the period from...show more content...
Pamphlets, books and newspapers carried information to a far greater audience than that a single
orator to a crowd could. This printed material, so often used as primary references, convey more
than just words but the attitude and feelings of the times. People could read, have read to them or at
least absorb the images and then decide what they wanted to believe in. It is following the printing
press that the period known as the "Scientific Revolution" occurs. Ideas now changed the way people
did science, Dascal and Boantza argue that it is the controversies and arguments that characterise the
revolutionary period, but had there not been published information then arguments would have little
to base themselves
Get more content on HelpWriting.net