The Scientific Revolution was not a revolution because the “Scientific Revolution” is thought to open our eyes to see how scientists had changed our ways of seeing our society but there wasn’t enough data to confirm what was happening. Yes, there were a lot of famous scientists that had left their legacy by redesigning how we see the world but it might just be speculations. It might just be guessing but later on, in the 20th century, we picked up and have modified.
The first reason why I think the Scientific Revolution was not a revolution is that the Scientific Revolution was illogical, it didn’t have a lot of data during this period because they weren’t as advent like us today. According to the article, “The Not-So Scientific Revolution“ by Kdonchik it states, “Many of the conclusions reached and theories developed during the Scientific Revolution were largely based on speculation and assumptions that were poorly supported by scientific evidence.” (Kdontchik 1) This evidence implies that this quote from the article was based on guessing and lack of data for science. The data is not as helpful compared to today’s science. If you were to say the Scientific Revolution in the 16th and 17th then how can you explain that today we are making more progress than there ever would have done. The 20th century should be the Scientific Revolution.
The second reason is that there is a lack of scientific evidence that undermined the work of scientists during this time of period. According to the article, “The Not-So Scientific Revolution“ by Kdonchik it states, “The scientists of this period are praised and credited with fundamental scientific truths that stood unsupported by data. It causes you to question whether this period is truly what it is taught to be.” (Kdonchik 2) What that means is this whole “Scientific Revolution” was not supported by trustworthy data and it just lacking in every aspect. It causes you to have an assumption of if this period was even real or was it what is taught to be.
127 our experts are availableright now
The third and final reason is the Scientific Revolution was a period of creativity. In the article “The not-So Scientific Revolution” by Kdonchik it states,” A lot of the ‘scientific concepts’ that developed during the Scientific Revolution would not pass for scientific evidence in modern science. The science work that is being published today is more thorough, researched, and concrete than the work that was done during the Scientific Revolution.” (Kdonchik 4)This shows the lack of support of the Scientific Revolution in the 16th and 17th. Consequently, The Scientific Revolution is dishonest in that it is given time of change for the better good and scientific development when it was a moment loaded mostly with unsupported arguments.
In conclusion Scientific Revolution was not a revolution because of the lack of data it provided. We made the Scientific Revolution revolutionary, we got the man power and the equipment it needs to explore the universe. It wasn’t a big change during that time because most of the people didn’t even know what was going on because it was all too new and confusing to them. Facts might not be as truthful as you may think, not all historical data is correct. It is true there is always another reason to be better and another alternative.
