Talk:Scientific Revolution

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why isn't this a real article? There was indeed a Scientific Revolution, spurred by the rediscovery by European thinkers of Greek philosophical traditions. Human 01:00, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So the revolution was a rediscovery? What makes it a revolution? RSchlafly 01:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
We call the rediscovery the Renaissance. The rediscovery of principles of logical examination of the natural world led to the scientific revolution. I guess I understand why it might not be a nice topic for this site, since the nature of the revolution was the overturning of centuries of religious oppression... and eventually led to naturalistic explanations for many previously mysterious aspects of the world. If one held dear to some of the ideas held in the middle ages, it was a very threatening concept. The only "threat" to religion is when religious dogma refuses to accept scientific advances (cf Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein) rather than incorporate them in an ever more enlightened theology. There will always be an infinite amount of room in our understanding of the universe for God and Faith. Just leave a little room on the side for the things we have actually figured out. Human 01:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
PS, I don't mind if you want a paragraph calling it a "myth" (it's your web site, not mine), but at least describe it well first, k? Human 01:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
It sounds like you subscribe to several myths. Is there something wrong with the description in the first paragraph? RSchlafly 01:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
"It sounds like you subscribe to several myths" - I'll ignore the insulting language.
"Is there something wrong with the description in the first paragraph?" Yes, it's woefully incomplete. Especially when equal space is given to calling it a myth. How about a brief (succinct) history, say, from Galileo through the industrial revolution that the scientific revolution spawned? Human 02:21, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Why stop there? There is a long history of science before Galileo. RSchlafly 02:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Wouldn't that best be covered in History of science, with the scientific revolution as a subset? To quote from Science: Order and Reality (Hicks et al, 1993, A Beka Book, Pensacola Christian College), p. 349 "Almost all of what we know about the physical laws which govern the universe has been discovered by scientists since the middle of the sixteenth century (the 1500s)." (bold and italics in original), and on p. 350, "The nineteenth century was perhaps the era of most rapid advance for science. By the end of that century, most of the great theories we are familiar with today were well formulated." So that is essentially the topic of this article - the scientific advances from the 16th through the 19th century. There is also a nice timeline on pages 350-351 that could be sifted for a brief overview of major discoveries. Human 14:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is a good example of the myth described in the article. According to the myth, science started in the mid-1500s. The book's view is very distorted. Great theories like relativity and quantum mechanics came after the period described in the book. RSchlafly 14:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

(dropping indent) OK, if I can't turn to a Christian science text for homeschoolers for clarity when writing on this site, where can I go? I mean, this science text has a separate index for scripture quotations! Human 15:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

My opinion: There can be no doubt that there occurred a considerable change in the way science was being conducted sometime around the 16th century. Whether one calls this a Revolution or a Kuhnian paradigm shift or something else entirely doesn't really matter, but the Scientific Revolution is the traditional term. However, this does not necessarily imply, as RSchlafly says, an assertion that science "started" at that time. Quite the contrary - it was a revolution in science. The scientists of the Scientific Revolution most certainly did not conduct their business in the same way as their medieval predecessors, but they were still very much indebted to them. The article should probably try to reflect this quite complex development and relationship. --AKjeldsen 16:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I am still waiting for a reply to my question: is my Christian Homeschooling science text really "very distorted" and containing "a good example of myth"? And, if so, what texts are not, so I can read the undistorted, non-mythological truth about this? Human 23:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, your text is distorted. It appears to have not even discovered 20th century science yet. RSchlafly 01:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
You're saying that the Pensacola Christian College, of which Beka Books is a ministry, has published (in 1993), an distorted Science textbook for the use of Young Earth Creationist Christian homeschoolers. You understand, you will be quoted on this elsewhere? You didn't answer my second question yet. Human 01:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
No, I don't know who might be quoting me, if anyone. Are there Young Earth Creationist Christian homeschoolers who are waiting for my recommendations? If so, I say to get some real science books, and ignore the YEC stuff. RSchlafly 13:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
To sort of answer your question, I do think there is a tendency for this site to be used by YEC HSers, so, yes, I suppose. As far as what references to use, thank you, I'll see what I can scrounge up that was published recently. Human 14:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's hardly a "modern" term...

...unless the 1800s count as "modern." Dpbsmith 06:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Who used the term in the 1800s? RSchlafly 12:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, I now see the 1867 quote in the article. I am not sure what to make of it, as I do not have the book. Is it saying that the scientific revolution includes work in the 12th century? The article needs some work. I'll try to get to it later. RSchlafly 13:25, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't have it either, but Google Books does. Click on the link. The entire book is available for reading online. Dpbsmith 16:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)


"There was no intellectual revolution in the sense of a profound change in intellectual thought. Experimentation and research were just as important in the much older cosmological models. The progress of science has been gradual and continuous."

I have to disagree with this, the renaissance and the age of enlightenment DID change the western worldview: they were the basis of our human rights, freedoms and an exponential growth in scientific progress. MiddleMan

Yes, there has been growth since the 1500s, but that is not what the article says. It say that science began in the 1500s. That is nonsense, and I intend to correct it. RSchlafly 02:38, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

No, it does not say that, it does say, science as we know it (scientific method) began back then, it does not deny that discoveries were made before then, also the use of "supposedly" makes it look as if the author doubts his own article, very confusing for readers. And the growth since the 1500's has been exponential.

I also find a discussion of Galileo's conflict with the church completely inappropriate here, the same goes for attributing science to the catholic church at every turn. Yes, European scientists were often Christian, just as Arab mathematicians were Muslims and Chinese inventors were Confucianists.


By reading this article one learns that there is a vague and controversial term called the "scientific revolution" that did not really happen, but even though it did not happen, the church still caused it, and that in 1867 some guy wrote a book about some other guy called Galileo who was persecuted by the Church, but it was his own fault, and finally ones learns that only devout Christians make good scientists. But after reading this article, one still does not know what the scientific revolution actually is/was... MiddleMan

The "scientific revolution" is a big myth. The article describes use of the term. RSchlafly 16:10, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
The "big myth" line could use a decent citation. Right now it's you saying it and no one else. I'm sure you have sources, so would you care to share them? Human 21:36, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Science did not "begin" with Galileo or Bacon or any one man. The idea of testing a theory about physics or astronomy, by comparing it with real-world observations, however, was not in vogue in 16th century Italy. Aristotle passed on at least one piece of dogma, i.e., the idea that the speed of falling objects is in proportion to their weight. It's not true for very dense, very heavy things like metal cannonballs.
It was not until the Renaissance that anyone did enough experimentation and observation to discover that falling objects pick up speed with each passing second. A cannonball which falls for 3 seconds will hit the ground at 90 feet/second (but you'd have to drop it from 140 feet for it to have that much time to fall). But a cannonball which falls for only 2 seconds will hit the ground at 60 feet/second after falling 65 feet. And a cannonball dropped from a height of 16 feet will hit the ground at 32 feet/second. You can drop a 5-pound, 8-pound and 10-pound cannonball together, and they'll hit the ground at almost exactly the same time. You'll hear a badadum sound as they hit within a fraction of a second. --Ed Poor 16:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I once saw a demonstration in a museum of a feather and a rock being dropped simultaneously down a big evacuated cylinder that must have been about twenty feet high. Very impressive.
Of course, there's another way to demonstrate this, which is to take a fairly large, heavy book; hold it horizontally; place a feather on top of it; and drop the book, flat. The feather stays with the book. I didn't believe this until I tried it myself. Dpbsmith 16:38, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
P. S. I blabbed about this a lot in Talk:Galileo and tried to make sense of an English translation of Aristotle. I think that Aristotle's mental model was that objects have no inertia—inertia is in fact a very non-obvious concept if you didn't take high-school physics—so the speed of fall is directly proportional to weight and inversely proportional to air resistance. One of his reasons why there can't be a vacuum is that in a vacuum, all objects would move with infinite speed. At least that's what I think he was saying. Dpbsmith 16:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Copernican Revolution

NItramNos has made a number of edits that reverse the meaning of several statements and I suggest reverted nearly all of it.

He admits that the Copernican theory was less accurate than the Ptolemaic, but insists on saying that the Copernican was a scientific revolution as defined by accounting for more observations. But it is just not true that the Copernican accounted for more observations. He inserts his own explanations of why the Copernican was less accurate, but they just aren't relevant. He deletes comments about the scientific nature of Copernicus's work. He also distorts Kuhn's definition of a revolution. RSchlafly 23:18, 23 May 2007 (EDT)


Alright, I've begun to include some good old-fashioned unbiased content to this article, so interested folks can actually see what history people are talking when they say "scientific revolution."

Also, I suspect it would be a good idea to retool the "Religion and Science" section to focus on actual influences during the time period (such as the religious drive behind Newton's inquiry, the lectures established by Robert Boyle to counter atheism, etc...). What we have now seems to fit better within an article on conflict/compatibility of religion and science, and is a bit vague and far reaching for an article such as this.

RodWeathers 15:39, 6 February 2008 (EST)

A few problems with the article

Reading through the article it makes the point that most of the scientific break throughs were preformed by Christians and that is true however, it really isn't relevent if the scientific revolution had happend in say China most of the break throughs would have been made by Confucians or Buddhists in Europe you were either Christian, Jewish or dead (Often dead regardless) and often both thanks to the various wars that occured so the fact that most break throughs by christians is really a matter of them being at the right place at the right time then anything else. Also the largest reason for the scientific revoultion is because of the Black Plauge killing off most the establishement that had previously suppressed most progress. As a side note the Roman Catholics at first suppressed the heliocentric view of the world (Copernicus' theory wasn't published until after this death) and it was the work of Gallieo (placed under hous arrest) and Johanne Kepler (Who had to defend his mother from the charge of witchcraft) that proved the heliocentric theory. On another note the fact there were so many wars shook up most worldviews allowing people to have new questions and the creation the printing press caused an upswing in literacy and scientific thought because more people were questioning things —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JCFreak (talk)

If you actually did read the article properly, you would have noted that not only did it make the point that most breakthroughs were by Christians, but also because they were Christians, and explained why. Yet you simply ignore this, and assert an opposing viewpoint with various unsubstantiated and false claims (for example, the "establishment", the church, supported scientific research). Philip J. Rayment 02:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)