Talk:Scientific Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article was previously the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. See how it changed: diff.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents


Note to the editors: You can time-stamp your posts anonymously with 5 tildes, thus 10:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Move to Copernicus revolution

The recent move of this article from Scientific Revolution to Copernicus revolution was made without any discussion on the talk page. Such major changes normally call for some prior ditscussion. I propose reverting this change for two reasons:

  1. The title Scientific Revolution is a well-established subject of historical discussion with an extensive literature (much of it already cited in this article), of which the Copernican revolution forms only one part.
  2. The new title "Copernicus revolution" is ungrammatical and there is a recently established article on the Copernican Revolution.

--SteveMcCluskey 01:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. If you replace the text of Copernican Revolution by the text of Copernicus revolution I well agree.

Copernican revolution refer to french article Mechanistic revolution and is not at all the same topic. I agree it is some confusion with several articles on the same topic in French Russian and Spanish wiki. I expect to remedy in the several days.--Seraphita 02:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that this article's text into should be moved to the page the Copernican Revolution. In my opinion, the present article should be restored to its original name, the Scientific Revolution.
As to the article on the Copernican Revolution, that is another matter and we should wait and see how that article develops. If it develops into an independent discussion of what Koyré called "La Revolution Astronomique" that would be fine. I see no reason to create a second article on the Scientific Revolution.
I do not see the relevance of what is being done on the French, Russian, and Spanish wikis to the title of this article. This is the English wikipedia and the appropriate name in English is the Scientific Revolution. I wouldn't expect articles in other languages to follow English usage nor should English article titles be expected to follow the usage of other languages.--SteveMcCluskey 04:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The correct title for this page is "Scientific Revolution". Checking google for what it's worth, "Copernicus revolution" get 12,300 hits and "Scientific Revolution" gets 834,000. —dv82matt 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


- I am sorry for the inconvenience, but it may be a confusion:
  • Note the plural of Scientific revolutionS and see article The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (book of Thomas Kuhn) and The Copernican Revolution in the same article.
  • Scientific revolutions are most general term than Copernicus (Copernican) revolution. Copernicus revolution is a concrete, particular scientific revolution, in astronomy, but a very important one.
  • In mathematics, biology, chemistry, medicine etc. also occurred Scientific revolutions. Copernicus revolution or Copernican revolution are both correct. Personally I prefer Copernicus revolution--Seraphita 11:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The confusion appears to arise from a misunderstanding of the distinction between Kuhn's philosophical concept of Scientific Revolutions and the historical event of the Scientific Revolution which took place between the 16th to the 18th centuries. This distinction is made clear in the introductory note at the head of the article and there is further discussion of the nature of the scientific revolution in the section of the article devoted to the Significance of the Revolution.
(Please note, that an anonymous user had removed that section on 13 May and it was only restored on 22 May. Its absence may have contributed to your confusion about the nature and scope of this article on the Scientific Revolution.)

--SteveMcCluskey 13:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

- I am profoundly not convicted and I not agree. There is several scientific revolutions. You have choice Copernicus (Copernician) revolution or Scientific revolutions (16 – 18 centuries)--Seraphita 22:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right that there have been several scientific revolutions. In English though, the scientific revolutions that occurred from the 16th to 18th centuries are collectively referred to as the "Scientific Revolution". This is common usage in English. —dv82matt 05:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
One reason this is causing such difficulty is that User:Seraphita did not attempt to obtain consensus by raising the issue for discussion before making the move. There are two recommended procedures for obtaining consensus for proposed moves:
  • The informal procedure is to raise the issue here on the talk page.
  • Where there is likely to be controversy, the appropriate procedure is to post a request on is on Wikipedia:Requested moves
Given the lack of consensus for this move, I will revert the move to the original name, Scientific Revolution.
If Seraphita wishes to propose the title Copernicus revolution, he may request it on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. --SteveMcCluskey 11:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I see that User:Dv82matt has already made the move; thanks Matt. My comments still stand.--SteveMcCluskey 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim Laundry List

Several paragraphs contain references to the accomplishments of Muslim scientist. These read like some kind of laundry list and are not tied in to the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th century, which is the subject of this article. If the works of Muslim scientists were known to later scholars and formed a basis for later development, that connection should be made. As it is, it is just confusing.Harold14370 12:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clearer ending date

I was taking a look at this article, and the beginning has a rough starting date, however doesn't mention any specific end. I know that it is hard to pin down the dates of the scientific revolution, but many agree that it ended around 1700, and may have continued in some ways into the 19th century, but not as much. G man yo (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But not even the simple heliocentric 'revolution', traditionally mistaken for a scientific revolution, had ended by 1700. For example, the great Danish astronomer Ole Roemer who first discovered the speed of light is finite died still a Tychonic geocentrist in 1710, and even Newton's 1726 Principia did not present heliocentrism as hard established fact in its list of Phenomena, as distinct from hypothesis. It seems it was maybe only Bradley's 1729 confirmation of stellar abberration predicted by the twin hypotheses of a finite speed of light and an annual solar orbit by the Earth that completed the heliocentric 'revolution'. And many of the so-called 'revolutionaries' cited in this article, such as Donne and Bacon, were in fact geocentrists.--80.6.94.131 (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I guess, but could there be some note in the introduction paragraph for this. This would be very useful to users who are just looking to scratch the surface on the subject. And maybe you could even include something like, "Most people would say that the Scientific revolution lasted from X to Y, however in actuality, it continued much further as people often mistake the Heliocentric revolution for the scientific revolution." I would do it, but I just finished my 9th grade research paper on the epic battle b/t the Catholic Church and the scientists of the revolution (and I actually found out that the church didn't really care so much except in Galileo's case) and I'm pretty much done for awhile on researching the scientific revolution. That, and I don't know how to cite sources on wikipedia (stupid freakin' research paper, lol :P). Thanks for listening. G man yo (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion

In the article's current claim I have italicised

"Although Newton's law of inertia had several similarities to Aristotle's theory of motion,[16] the salient point is that it differed in key ways, such as an external force being a requirement for motion in Aristotle's theory.[17]"

it is nonsense to claim that external force was a requirment for motion in Aristotle's physics. He posited (i) the internal force of nature or gravity in the case of sublunar natural motion, (ii) the internal impressed motive force impressed within the medium in sublunar projectile motion and (iii)the internal motive force of the celestial spheres in superlunary motion. It should thus be deleted with the whole senrtence that thus becomes pointless. The essential key difference between Newton's first law and Aristotle's principle of interminable rest or motion in a void is that for Newton the endless rest or motion predicated in his first law would be caused by an internal force according to his Definition 3, namely the inherent force of inertia, whereas for Aristotle and Ockham, for example, it seems it would not be caused by any force at all, neither external nor internal. I shall flag this claim as unsourced in order to try and elicit where Drake makes this mistaken claim and what evidence he provides for it in Aristotle's texts.--Logicus (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

At present the claim is documented by a citation to an article by Stillman Drake, a noted historian of Galileo's thought, in a reliable journal, the American Journal of Physics. You may believe this is false but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability not Truth. If you wish to delete this passage you may either:
  • Show that the citation is in error because the article in question does not claim that external force is a requirement for motion in Aristotle's theory, or
  • Provide citations to a similar reliable source stating that an external force is not a requirement for motion in Aristotle's physics.
In the latter case, the Neutral Point of View policy requires that you do not give undue weight to a position that appears rarely, if at all, in the historical literature. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Logicus: ‘Tis a fine day for American academic history of science, and surely a new nadir for it were that possible, when one has to point out and cite references that natural motion, unlike violent motion, does not require an external mover in Aristotle’s physics, whatever a logically challenged whacky deceased Canadian may have said. But fortunately McCluskey does not claim Drake was a reliable historian, nor that the allegedly reliable American Journal of Physics is a reliable journal on the history of science. Thus hopefully there may be no obstacle to even McCluskey accepting that the following extract from the article on Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy expresses the prevailing standard view, even in America and even whacky California, that natural motion does not require an external force in Aristotle’s Physics:
“Nature, according to Aristotle, is an INNER principle of change and being at rest (Physics 2.1, 192b20-23). This means that when an entity moves or is at rest according to its nature reference to its nature may serve as an explanation of the event.” [My caps.]
Hopefully even McCluskey will accept this satisfies his second sufficient justification for deletion, thus saving Logicus the burden of re-reading Drake’s follies. (For the uninformed reader, Drake was the unfortunate anti-Duhemian who claimed Duhem’s thesis that Galileo adopted scholastic impetus dynamics was false because impetus is not a causal motive force in Galileo’s dynamics, in spite of the copious evidence to the contrary in his own English translations of Galileo’s Dialogo and Discorsi.)
Thus I shall delete the whole misleading sentence.--Logicus (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The Stanford encyclopedia article refers to an entity's "motion according to its nature" -- natural motion. You're right that an external force is only required for violent motion. And yes I am claiming that Stillman Drake is a reliable historian of science, having been Professor of that subject at the University of Toronto, one of the leading schools in that field and having been awarded the Sarton Medal for his work on Galileo.
I've restored the text adding the significant qualifier "violent motion". --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Logicus: It is most gratifying that McCluskey accepts that Logicus is right about something and therein also thus that presumably the learned Professor Drake and the American Journal of Physics were wrong and unreliable about something, if Drake did indeed claim an external force is required for motion in Aristotle's Physics in his learned article in that most learned journal, as this Wikipedia article apparently claimed. We are all fallible !
However, unfortunately McCluskey's anticipated restoration of the text just with the added qualifier 'violent' has now impaled it on the other horn of its dilemma, wherein the contrast it now makes with Newton's first law of motion, namely that violent motion does not require an external force in Newton's law/dynamics, is both false and also apparently unsourced unless Drake also makes this claim in the same article. In Aristotle's physics 'violent' motion is motion against nature/gravity and requires some countervailing force to overcome that of nature/gravity, but such motion also requires some countervailing force in Newton's dynamics. To put this in simple terms for such as professors of the history of science, thus for example moving a book from the floor to put it on a shelf requires an external upward force to move it upwards in violent motion against its own weight. Or if one were to identify 'natural' motion in Newton's dynamics with inertial motion, that is, motion caused only by the inherent force of inertia, and identify violent motion with accelerated motion, then Newton's first law says non-natural or 'violent' motion is caused by an impressed force, which is an external force, unlike the force of inertia, which is an internal force.
It is also notable that Heath does not claim "Newton's law of inertia had several similarities to Aristotle's theory of motion,[16]" as the article currently claims, but rather that Aristotle's principle of interminable locomotion in a void in Physics 4.8.215a19-22 was an early anticipation of Newton's first law of motion, as indeed Newton himself also claimed. --Logicus (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Logicus Corrective Edit: In the light of this discussion, Logicus replaces the text:
"While preparing a revised edition of his Principia, Newton attributed his law of gravity and his first law of motion to a range of historical figures.[15] Although Newton's law of inertia had several similarities to Aristotle's theory of motion,[16] the salient point is that it differed in key ways, such as an external force being a requirement for violent motion in Aristotle's theory.[17]"
by the following text
'In the Axioms Scholium of his Principia Newton said its axiomatic three laws of motion were already accepted by mathematicians such as Huygens, Wallace, Wren and others, and also in memos in his draft preparations of the second edition of the Principia he attributed its first law of motion and its law of gravity to a range of historical figures.[ref]A. R. Hall and M. B. Hall Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1962), pp.309-11; J. E. McGuire and P. M. Rattansi, "Newton and the 'Pipes of Pan'," Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 21, No. 2. (Dec., 1966), pp. 108-143[/ref] According to Newton himself and other historians of science[ref] Sir Thomas L. Heath, Mathematics in Aristotle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949), pp. 115-6.[/ref], his Principia's first law of motion was the same as Aristotle's counterfactual principle of interminable locomotion in a void stated in Physics 4.8.215a19--22 and was also endorsed by ancient Greek atomists and others. As Newton expressed himself:
"All those ancients knew the first law [of motion] who attributed to atoms in an infinite vacuum a motion which was rectilinear, extremely swift and perpetual because of the lack of resistance...Aristotle was of the same mind, since he expresses his opinion thus...[in Physics 4.8.215a19-22], speaking of motion in the void [in which bodies have no gravity and] where there is no impediment he writes: 'Why a body once moved should come to rest anywhere no one can say. For why should it rest here rather than there ? Hence either it will not be moved, or it must be moved indefinitely, unless something stronger impedes it.' " [p310-11, Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, (Eds) Hall & Hall, Cambridge University Press 1962.]
If correct, Newton's view that the Principia's first law of motion had been accepted at least since antiquity and by Aristotle refutes the traditional thesis of a scientific revolution in dynamics by Newton's because the law was denied by Aristotle.' --Logicus (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)