Karina+Week+4,+Due+Sept+21

In “The Scientific Revolution: Definition, Concept, History” Robert Hatch questions traditionally held beliefs that “…the scientific discoveries of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries brought about a fundamental change in the way Europeans viewed the natural world.” (Cracking the AP European History Exam: The Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment 92) Because I took European History in high school, I thought that a comparison between what I was taught and what Robert Hatch believes about the Scientific Revolution would be interesting. The first question Hatch addresses is what is, or was, the Scientific Revolution, and what do historians mean when they talk about it. Hatch then goes on to say that he believes that the ‘periodization’ of this period in history is due to simple convenience, what some historians believe is fair evidence that something very dramatic happened in that period, and that the ‘periodization’ is useful in tying together that different disciples that emerged as a result. As he proceeds with his argument, it becomes clear that what is traditionally believed and taught is almost too complex to define (and even historians disagree about the time period and especially key periods). In European History, the period called the Scientific Revolution begins with Copernicus and ends with Newton, a time span of about 200 years. During this time, there was a fundamental shift of perspective from a medieval world view (Aristotle and the Church) to a “different” one – one that greatly changed “science” and philosophy…in an almost universal sense. Meaning that the way people viewed the world was completely changed with the introduction of ideas from Bacon, Descartes, Pascal, Hobbes, and Locke as well as from the scientists who caused the entire ruckus – Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo and Newton. This new perspective of the world, that the earth was not only not the center of the universe but that it was not stationary either, raised questions about where humans belonged in the grand scheme of things. The texts I have goes on to say that some possibilities for this changing view are the discovery of the new world, the invention of the printing press, rivalry among nation states, the Reformation, and humanism. From the article by Hatch, change is in “natural philosophy” and how science changed how Europeans justified claims to knowledge e.g. on the authority of the individual experience (which then lead to changes in social and religious views and a transition to a more deistic perspective). I believe that there were indeed new ideas being introduced in the time period that is “periodized”, if that is the proper term, as the Scientific Revolution. There were major changes in societies in many countries (England, France, etc.) and there were a few people who were challenging the traditional views with much more ease that before in history. But this revolution, if it can be called that, was not one that the common person was aware of beyond maybe hearing or reading about, if they could read. And with the invention of the printing press and the Protestant reformation happening (people were encouraged to read the Bible), getting your hands on a copy of one of the writings of the privileged class might have been easier. But to call the revolution universal is a bit of a stretch. Robert Hatch ends his argument with saying that the “myth” (to bring in Terry Halwes to this discussion) of the more widely known Scientific Revolution is “…the traditional definition of the Scientific Revolution with which we began focused on a wholesale redefinition of nature and the categories of human knowing.” While I do not agree on all points with Robert Hatch, he makes a good point when he says that there are popular notions of certain historical happenings that get put into history books and thus spread, but are not always the most accurate interpretations of history. (Sort of like the Galileo story).