In the real existence of a climatic
In issue 12 two men are discussing the opposing views of the topic "Was the Scientific Revolution Revolutionary?"Herbert Butterfield supports the yes side of the topic, and Steven Shapin supports the no side of the topic.Both historians question the idea and try to back up their view with facts and opinions from our own history and idea's from the great thinkers of yesterday.
Herbert Butterfield argues that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the scientific revolution was booming.He states that the early seventeenth century was more aware than us today of the revolutionary character at the moment then now had been reached.He also said that the thinkers of that time believed that a scientific revolution could take place over a single lifetime, but instead it took two.Francis Bacon was one of the leaders during the time, and Descartes was another during the later half of the century.Bacon believed that if men wanted to achieve anything in the world then they would need to look at new practices and policies.Butterfield also stated that there had only been three short periods of genuine scientific progress throughout the course of human history.
Steven Shapin argues the no and his reasons and facts to back up his decision can be linked to science.He states that there is no such thing as a scientific revolution, and that historians say that the real existence of a climatic event holds the fundamentalism that changes what people know about the natural world.He says that a revolution is the idea of a periodically recurring cycle, but then he says that the American, French, and Russian revolutions could be the progeny of a scientific revolution.He also states that most of our seventeenth century ancestors didn't even know what a scientific revolution was or even happening.
After reading both of these sides to the topic I have come to think that the scientific revolution was prob…