Chapter 28 Chapter 26: The Historian's Perspective

In Chapter 1, we have learned that the historian of science George Sutton argued in 1937 that, under normal circumstances, scientific progress is an increasing or accumulating activity, not a continuation of a revolution.Many scientists and scientific critics have accepted this view, among them the chemist J. B．Kortnam and physicist E.Rutherford; and (as we shall see in the last chapter) there are still a few who still hold this view.By the 1900s, however, historians of science had come to accept the concept of a scientific revolution, fundamentally influenced by three important works.These three works are: H.Butterfield's "The Origin of Modern Science: 1300-1800" (first edition in 1949, reprinted in 1957); A. R．Hall's "Scientific Revolution: 1500-1800" (first edition in 1954, reprinted in 1983) and T. S．Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (first edition 1962, reprinted 1970).Butterfield and Hall only affirmed the historical place of the scientific revolution, because Butterfield only introduced another kind of revolution—the modern scientific revolution.However, as soon as Kuhn's work was published, scientific revolutions were generally accepted as regularly occurring phenomena.

According to the usual accounts, it was Butterfeld who introduced the term "modern scientific revolution" into the historical discourse.And when I asked him this question once, Butterfield (who has always been interested in the study of historiography) replied that he was fully aware of the role he played in propagating the idea of ​​a "modern scientific revolution." effect.However, he believes that this concept is not his innovation.In fact, a careful reading of "The Origins of Modern Science" reveals that the book was written on the basis of a series of lectures given in 1984, which shows that he did not consider himself the originator of the idea.

However, Butterfield played an important role in popularizing the idea of ​​the "modern scientific revolution".He asserts with force and eloquence that the end result of the modern scientific revolution "not only overshadowed tedious philosophy, but disintegrated Aristotelian physics." "It overthrew not only the authority of medieval science, but also the authority on ancient science." Moreover, this revolution "far surpasses anything since Christianity, eclipsing both the Renaissance and the Reformation." Butterfield is a historian in general, not a Scientists or historians of science, therefore, his dramatic conclusions have particularly influenced other eminent historians and philosophers (and even historians of science and philosophers of science).These historians and philosophers can rightly regard the cataclysmic events of modern science from Galileo to Newton as major revolutions in history.According to Whitehead, following the simple rules of the "century of genius," the great scientific events of that era are associated with the names of Galileo, Newton, and their contemporaries.In order to emphasize the revolutionary nature of scientific thought of that period, Butterfield used two phrases: "heroic adventure" and "great movement of human practice".First, Butterfield emphasizes the impact of what he calls the Revolution with "variety of titles," and he avoids easily explaining the Revolution in terms of the impact of the Reformation or of social and economic factors.

In The Origins of Modern Science, Butterfield not only gives prominence to the modern scientific revolution as, if possible, the most famous event in Western civilization, but he also refers to "the revolution in the field of chemistry." A delayed scientific revolution." Thus, he was aware of a delayed Newtonian revolution, which may emphasize that the "belated scientific revolution in chemistry" was not simply a A simple variant.The chemical revolution was first proposed by the revolutionary master Lavoisier, since M.After the publication of Berthelot's "Lavoisier's Chemical Revolution" (1890), "chemical revolution" was widely used.I must admit that I was never convinced: this would mean that scientific revolutions were "lag", simply because the term "lag" is more helpful in understanding natural events, such as the later explanation of rain.Butterfield does not make it clear to the reader that there is any real conceptual difference between what he refers to as a "scientific revolution in chemistry" and a "Lavoisier chemical revolution".He does his best to show the influence of the modern scientific revolution on the original mathematics, astronomy and physics, but not on the chemical revolution and similar chemical revolutions until the French Revolution.That is: in the process of the modern scientific revolution changing various disciplines, the arrival of the chemical revolution was about a century later than that of astronomy and physics.

Butterfield's influence was extended by the fact that his work was emerging as an active exploration of a specialized field of the history of science, extending it to many fields of knowledge: general history, Philosophy, political science, economics, sociology.The many applications of science that emerged in World War II, the international issue of nuclear weapons control, and the coexistence of hopes and fears for the future brought science and technology to the real attention of many scientists and non-scientists alike.This focus has led to a growing interest in the history of science, the scientific revolution, and the application of modern science to the creation of the scientific revolution.It was at this time that Butterfield's first startling account of the Scientific Revolution (the revolution in which modern science was founded) appeared at this time, and thus had a great impact.His work was almost immediately adopted as a public textbook for both beginning and advanced students.This conclusion has influenced a whole generation of scholars and scientists as an authoritative statement.

Early Writers on the Revolution However, Butterfield is not the first historian of the 20th century to detail the scientific revolution.Many of the important authors cited by Butterfield addressed the topic of scientific revolutions and revolutions in science early on. M．Dr. Ornstein was the first of these writers, and her Columbia University medical treatise, "The Laws of the Seventeenth-Century Scientific Association," was published in 1913.It remains a classic to this day; the book was reprinted twice, in 1928 and 1975.In addition to analyzing modern scientific revolutions as a single unified movement, Ornstein also applies the concept of scientific revolutions to specific events within larger revolutions.For example, she said of the telescope that "it revolutionized astronomical science." , 249, 262).Ornstein specifically mentions a change that occurred in the first half of the seventeenth century, which "seems more like a mutation than a gradual evolution in earlier periods" (p. 21).She sums up her findings this way: "In the second half of the seventeenth century," scientific societies were cultural artifacts, "more like the universities of the Scientific Revolution."Remarkably, she asserts that "in contrast to the many revolutions that have gone down in history and seem to have little meaning, there is a revolution in the basic habits of thinking and exploring".The exaggeration of this last citation is due to the standard terminology used by Butterfield in his later interpretation.Perhaps most salient to us is this: a thread not pointed out in her discussion but which we can find: the concept of a modern scientific revolution, like the concept of a scientific revolution, can be applied to anything else, not just It is a standard mode of interpretation and analysis in history.

In the 1920s, a man named A. A．A scholar of Porter, he had a profound influence on Butterfield and many historians of science and philosophers of science. His history and his collection of reviews "Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physics" (1925), in the modern scientific revolution Period, as a classic study of the foundations of the philosophy of science, it has been highly valued.Potter was a trained philosopher who later abandoned the study of earlier ideas and their significance to concentrate on the philosophy of religion. More than half of Potter's books are on Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Giber and Boyle, and the rest are on "Newton's metaphysics".Introducing Newton in a reference cited by Porter, he said that it was Newton who caused the outstanding event-"a new intellectual revolution" (p.203).However, after reading Newton's work, Porter believes that this inference has a "pessimistic" color.For, Newton "in his authoritative opinion, should make a clear statement of the methods used in his rich and colorful work."Potter pored over Newton's various papers, trying to find "any particular and detailed account of this statement," but all in vain.

In this influential historical study, Porter also referred to "R. Boyle's Chemical Revolution", using the title "Specific Hypotheses and Experimental Methods, Not the Inductive Method of Geometry" (p. 200).For Potter, the "use of exact mathematics in the sciences in its order" during the time of Kepler and Galileo brought about "a famous metaphysical revolution" (p. 156).Potter also referred to the "revolution in astronomy".Galileo's "positive conception of causality" and the science that accompanied it was considered a "complete revolution" (p. 89).Potter believes that this is an appropriate phrase to describe the "greatness of the Galilean revolution" (p. A closed movement.In describing Galileo, Porter referred to a "revolution in thought" (p. 84). A．Coyley and Butterfield later developed this idea more fully.In Potter's paper, one can also see the "Copernican Revolution" (p. 50), which is said to be "the most fundamental revolution", and Potter is believed to be convinced that the road is made by "people like Cusa". The free preaching of a thinker like Nicholas" (p. 28).Pott discusses the vision of the Copernican revolution, arguing that the "simplicity" of his system "correctly...reduces some of the prejudices that his conception of revolution does arouse".Moreover, in his general introduction to the event, Porter enumerates all the fundamental inventions that arose during the first two crucial centuries of modern science, arguing that "in the period 1500-1700 this revolution did take place" (p.16).

Potter's writings opened up a new field of scientific thought—the metaphysical foundations and religious implications of physics from Copernicus to Newton.Insofar as it is shown, it is worth noting that this new science is "inseparable from the philosophical and religious trends of the centuries and centuries" (Glark 1977, 63).But in its current context, this oft-reprinted work makes sense for a discussion of the modern scientific revolution and the "basic" Copernican revolution. Another writer who used the concept of revolution in science dealing with the seventeenth century was the philosopher Whitehead.The telescope, he argued, "may remain as a toy" (1923, 165), but in Galileo's hands "it (the telescope) caused a revolution".Whitehead then endeavors to "explain the main revolutionary ideas that Galileo brought to his day."In Science and the Modern World (1925), Whitehead repeatedly referred to what he called the "historical rebellion" of the sixteenth century, based on his 1925 Lowell lectures in Boston. , he believes that this rebellion includes science, in the field of science, "this means requiring experiment and reasoning induction" (p.57).Although, he does not specifically use the word "revolution" when referring to Galileo, there is no doubt that there are comments on the impact of Galileo's revolution. "produced the most fundamental change in the conception of human beings ever seen" (p. 3).He then went on to say the memorable and oft-quoted line "I wonder if there has been such a small ripple that caused such a stir since Christ was born in the manger".This may seem like an odd metaphor for the Galilean revolution, since Galileo's own style was combative, and he sought to establish a new philosophy, a new science, and a new astronomy.He strove to destroy the reactionary forces which he was sure held his God in servitude and caused error in science.However, Whitehead's attempt to observe events at that time from a historically neutral point of view, perhaps, has a negative impact on the Trent Club P.As far as the history of Sapi is concerned, it is only suitable for men's recreational reading.Today, it is worth noting that Whitehead, in his system of thought, made considerable changes to the trial, confession, and sentence of Galileo he had written about in the seventeenth century, which he had previously described as "gentle." Condemnation" and "Honorable Confinement" (p. 2).I admit that Whitehead's introduction was an attempt to express the feeling that the revolutionary implications of Galileo's science were not clearly expressed to his contemporaries, nor did they really have an immediate and strong influence on their thinking, Hence, writers simply use the term "mild reprimand," almost as understatement as one would punish a skinny and naughty child.

In the 1920s, another popular book was J. H．"The Generation of Contemporary Spirit" written by Randall Jr. (first edition in 1926, reprinted in 1940, reprinted in 1976), when the young philosopher Randall Jr. was only 20 years old.Randall Jr. believes that the great revolutionary movement from the Middle Ages to the modern world is neither the Renaissance nor the Reformation, but has been "influenced by the continuous development of science" (p. 164). "Neither humanism nor the Christian Reformation was destined to start the greatest revolution in the faith of men, whatever the triumphs of the centuries, but science" (p. 203 ).Randall Jr. then discusses the writings of Copernicus, in which he argues that there is nothing really revolutionary about Copernicus's thinking, except for his presentation of "fallacies discovered by the old writers" and "even observation and Common sense is bound to be wrong" (p. 230) the "negative disposition" of this idea.Sensitive to the notion that "the Copernican revolution was accomplished by Galileo" (p. 235), Randall Jr. subscribes to the extreme view that "more meaningful than the Copernican and Galilean revolutions are the creation The Cartesian Revolution of the New Physics" (p. 244).In science, he not only compared the "Copernican and Cartesian revolutions", but also found "a revolution in astronomy from the Middle Ages to modern times" (p. 242).Moreover, linking the revolution launched by Spinoza and the revolution launched by Descartes is regarded as "two major revolutions in people's beliefs" (p. 247).Referring to the later revolution, Randall Jr. quotes Diderot in stating that we are "at the juncture of a great scientific revolution" (p. 265).He also notes that contemporary revolutions have shown the "good prospects for revising the Newtonian system" (p. 254).Newton and Locke "influenced the revolution in the beliefs and habits of thought" which were fitting to shape an "age of enlightenment and reason". The Making of the Contemporary Spirit deals with many such scientific revolutions.

Historian P.Smith used the phrase modern scientific revolution as the title of a chapter in "History of Modern Culture". Obviously, he especially emphasized the modern scientific revolution.Smith, like Butterfield, was a general historian, not a scientist, not even a historian of science, and his scholarly achievement was his dissertation on Erasmus.Smith was the first to recognize that science and its history would become a central part of "contemporary culture."His outstanding contribution to science is indicated by the subtitle of the first volume of his work: "The Great Renaissance 1543-1687".During that period, Copernicus' "Astronomical Revolution" and Newton's "Principles" came out one after another.However, when emphasizing the scientific revolution, Smith cited another ordinary historian J. H．Take Robertson's example, Robertson's "On the Development of the Spirit" (1921) has a chapter entitled "Modern Scientific Revolution".Smith considered the modern scientific revolution "the greatest revolution in history". (and with rhetorical rhetoric similar to that of Ornstein and Butterfield) insisting that it was "a scientific achievement that surpasses anything that has ever been done before" (p. 144). In 1939, the scientist J. D．Bernard published a provocative book, The Social Function of Science, which a Marxist criticized as arbitrarily establishing an order between science and society.Given the author's politics, we are not surprised that he rarely touches on the scientific revolution.Among the revolutions he deals with are: "the first great revolution in human society" (p. 14) with the "invention of agriculture", the "spiritual revolution" (p. New ideas" (p. 167), "are produced with the flight of the cannonball". The "improvement of communication and transportation methods" (p. 170) in the early 20th century "revolutionized the possibility of simultaneous and direct action of millions of people at the same time", the "great chemical revolution" (p. 335) "Founded by Lavoisier," and "The Great Quantum Revolution of the 20th Century" (p. 368).Then there was the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, and the "Second Industrial Revolution" (p. 392), in which "science played a bigger, more meaningful role than in the First Industrial Revolution." "(p. 343), and became the basis of future revolutions in mining technology, Bernard, however, did not seriously develop the subject of scientific revolutions (past, present and future), although he described in detail the nature and impact.He does not, however, deal more with general seventeenth-century conceptions of revolution.This theme only appears in a single book, a section that begins with the subtitle: "The Modern Scientific Revolution: The Task of Capitalism".And when Bernard expanded, revised, and completely rewrote the book after Butterfield in the 1900s, he used the concept of revolution so extensively that the reader could easily get the impression that scientific revolutions had become part of the basic framework of his historical thought (Bernar 1954; 1969).The second volume of Bernard's four-volume History of Science is entitled "Scientific and Industrial Revolutions".This led to a situation where, in the next 30 years or so, the creative literature of the history of science was full of modern scientific revolutions and revolutions in science.Therefore, the two phases of Bernard's work reflect the characteristics of the times.These two periods are: before 1950, the concept of revolution including modern scientific revolution began to be recognized, and after 1950, these concepts were widely used as the essence of our understanding of scientific change. The Trailblazing Role of Alexander Coyre I will conclude the pre-Butterfield study with a discussion of Alexander Coyre.Coyley was the most influential person in the writings of the history of science in the 1950s and 1960s.At least a decade before Butterfield, Koyre made a meaningful application of the idea of ​​a scientific revolution as a central organizing principle.His Studies on Galileo, published in 1939, is generally regarded as a foundational work, "a historiographical revolution in scientific research" (Kuhn, 1962, 3).As a result of this revolution, historians of science are no longer looking for "the permanent dedication of ancient science to our present."But "trying to show the historical integrity of the science of his time".Thus, as Kuhn puts it, for example, the new historian of science "seeks not Galileo's views in relation to modern science but rather his views in relation to those of his group (e.g. his teacher, generations, and the most recent luminaries of science)" (ibid.).Moreover, "they hold to the views of the scientific community and those of other people whose views are similar (and often far from those of modern science), and give these views the greatest internal coherence and the greatest possible applicability to the natural world." ". This new approach (perhaps best exemplified in the work of A. Coyley) centers on a new conceptual analysis, concerned not only with the thought of individual scientists, but with contemporary scientific, philosophical, and even religious presuppositions; including principles of acceptability or sublimity of science in terms of prevailing or "accepted" philosophies or themes (Halton, 1977).Coyley's analysis brought about certain remarkable changes in the study of the seventeenth century, for example: like the dissolution of the Aristotelian universe, the mathematization of space, etc., these changes are so important in character, as if starting A knowledge revolution. Coyley's famous Studies on Galileo began with the declaration that it was my purpose to undertake a "study in the evolution (and revolution) of scientific thought".He regards the "scientific revolution of the seventeenth century" as a "true mutation" in human thought, and in a special sense the term "mutation" has been coined by G.adopted by Barclays.According to Coyre, "mutation" has been the most important since the earliest studies of the universe in ancient Greece.A scientific revolution is "a far-reaching intellectual transformation of modern physics (or more precisely classical physics) that has been formulated and produced results."This mutation is based on an important "geometricization of space", essentially replacing the "corporeal universe" of Aristotle and Ptolemy with Euclid's "abstract space" (1939; 1978) .Coyley was convinced that the revolutionary changes in seventeenth-century science were simply "changes in the way man thinks about his natural environment."As R.According to Hall (1970, 212), Coyley "repeatedly insisted that the changes that brought about the development of classical science were neither socioeconomic, nor technological, nor pertinent to the methodology of science." R．Hall sums it up: "During the late Renaissance, such an expression of the general character of intellectual change could not but lead historians to treat the Scientific Revolution as a great historical drama" with "its secondary plots all As a great drama. In the middle and late 17th century, the climax of this drama gradually appeared." (p.213) Butterfield was deeply influenced by Coyley's work, not only in unique aspects like Galileo's Platonism, the role of mathematics, the dissolution of the Aristotelian universe, and the secondary role of so-called experimentation in the scientific revolution. In the title, moreover, he also accepts and actually applies Coyley's idea that there has been a fundamental change in the way humans think about natural phenomena. Butterfield's Concept of Modern Scientific Revolution Butterfeld's conception of a modern scientific revolution differs quite markedly from scientific revolutions in general, even from those involving the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and from those expressed in the first decades of the twentieth century.According to him, there was no revolution on the model of the French and Russian revolutions.Instead, he equated modern science with the entire development of modern science since the time of Copernicus, or the days of Galileo and Kepler.Although, Butterfeld modestly stated that he did not introduce new concepts, and, speaking cautiously about "the so-called scientific revolution", or "what is called the scientific revolution", he pointed out that: the modern scientific revolution was in Galileo, or The age of Galileo and Newton was not simply a single series of historical events, as Ornstein, Potter, and Coyley have described.According to Butterfield: Revolution will be a force that perpetuates or creates history, and that force is pushing history before us.Therefore, in his writings, the modern scientific revolution has features similar to Marx's "permanent revolution".He discusses this a lot in his talks rather than writing it down in the book. Hence the title of Chapter 10 of Butterfield: "The Place of the Modern Scientific Revolution in Western Civilization".It is evident that for the modern scientific revolution to occur in this sense, it meant not only the introduction of a new factor into history as others of has such a broad field that it becomes apparent from a very early stage that it plays a direct role, that is, begins to control other factors" (p. 179).In conclusion, the modern scientific revolution not only marked many great changes, but also became the foundation of contemporary science.Butterfield said excitedly: "We now say that Western civilization comes with Japan as an Eastern country, and it is no longer the consciousness of the Greco-Roman philosophers. This does not mean Japanese Christians. I mean science, which is the 17th century. Since the second half of the century, it has begun to change the thinking mode of the western appearance and all the facilities of civilization. In addition, Butterfield is sure: "Today, I am in such a position to understand its complexity", which is of course clearer than our predecessors who have been active in this field for 20 or even 50 years.He made it clear to us that we (in 1949) did not wear "colored glasses", nor did we "borrow the past to illustrate the present", that in the 1940s and 1950s, "what has been revealed is only more vividly produced profound and important shifts, the world has spent more than 300 years in a scientific revolution".Revolutions had begun in the days of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton.Thus, for Butterfeld, the historical significance of the modern scientific revolution grows and clarifies as science develops later, even more recently.This helps to explain "why our predecessors were seldom aware of the significance of the 17th century and the supremacy of the modern scientific revolution. Why did they pay attention to the Renaissance or the Enlightenment of the 18th century".Western civilization had acquired its modern character in the seventeenth century, especially through, or in relation to, the modern scientific revolution: "This is why, since the birth of Christianity, there has been no historically comparable Milestones compared to". The Application of Revolutions by Historians of Science The previous examples show that the concept of revolution in science and revolution in modern science appears prominently in the writings of many important writers before the 1950s.Moreover, the most general textbook of such revolutions before Coyley or Butterfield—W. C．Dampier's oft-reprinted History of Science—discussed extensively.For example, he discussed a revolution in astronomy "caused by the theory of Copernicus" in the first edition of the book in 1929; a revolution in human rationality in Newton's time; ", as well as revolutionary discoveries in physics and "a revolutionary achievement in the field of biology, when physiology and psychology discovered the connection between consciousness and matter, and Darwin created the theory of evolution."Dampier also speaks of a "revolution in psychology" and of "a veritable revolution in thinking" produced by 20th-century mathematics and physics.In this book, although he frequently used the word "revolution", he did not clearly demonstrate the development theory of scientific revolution, nor did he take the concept of scientific revolution as an important leading idea.In addition, the modern scientific revolution is not the subject of his writings. Although the theme of revolution comes up from time to time, we cannot yet conclude that historians, historians of science and scientists of the first half of the 20th century recognized the existence of modern scientific revolutions as much as we do today, and took this idea as a guiding principle, Or the general awareness that science has been revolutionized. In the 1930s, some important studies on the history of science mentioned neither the concept of scientific revolution nor the concept of modern scientific revolution.For example, the idea of ​​modern scientific revolution in R. K．In Merton's 1938 classic "Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England", it obviously did not appear as a technical term and an idea; and Merton did not mention the scientific revolution.Secondly, such a term is not found in the Soviet scholar B.It appears in Hesson's famous essay (1931, 1971), written in 1931, which is seen as a groundbreaking application of Marxist analysis to "The Social and Economic Origins of Newton's Principles".At the same time, in G. N．In Clark's 1937 book on Hessen's theory, "Science and Social Welfare in the Newtonian Age", the term "modern scientific revolution" did not appear; finally, in H.In Gluck's seminal 1952 summary of The Science of Western Civilization, "Revolutions in Modern Science" were neither the subject nor the subtitle, and the only time the word "revolution" is used in reference to science in the book is in reference to Lavoisier's chemical revolution. In the historiography of modern science, in 1954 A. P．The publication of Hall's "Modern Scientific Revolution 1500-1800" is a major event.The subtitle of the book is "The Formation of Contemporary Scientific Attitudes", although Hall (vii, 375) admits that H.The significance of Butterfield's work, which remains the first to deal primarily with the modern scientific revolution.Hall emphasizes the "complementary" types of scientific developments that began in the sixteenth century—"two definite lines of development of theoretical concepts and facts"—that "continued to develop markedly simultaneously in the sciences" (p. 37).He believed that "the scientific spirit of the 16th century developed naturally from the achievements and progress of the Middle Ages".By absorbing a large amount of academic thought and adopting A.Coyley's study of thought, Hall takes the reader to the roots of Galileo's thought—the development of that thought that led to two of his great contributions.Hall found that Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two New Sciences (1638) did not bring about a real revolution in dynamics, as Galileo had originally envisaged, just as the first parts of the Dialogue are now seen only as "A discussion of the comparative merits and demerits of the two cosmology" (p. 77).He closes this part of the book with a significant prediction: "The subject of science in the next century will be a broad interpretation of nature by the principles of Cartesian mechanics, with the help of Galileo's descriptive analysis of motion" (p. 101).Hall employs a whole new set of conceptual analyzes in each chapter.The series of heroic figures characteristic of the traditional writings on the history of science disappeared.Instead, ideas and facts, theories and experiments or observations permeate this history within the larger context of religious and philosophical thought.If say, H.Butterfield dabbles suddenly in the history of scientific revolutions like a disproportionately passionate amateur, so, R.Hall, however, is definitely a talented insider. Hall had previously published a monograph, Ballistics in the Seventeenth Century (1952), which foreshadowed his later involvement in an in-depth study of the history of technology.So it's not surprising that he has an innovative chapter on "The Technological Factors of Modern Scientific Revolutions," in which he sheds light on the tradition of manual mechanics and the interplay between science and technology.In retrospect, the best part of his book is the discussion of scientific instruments (pp. 237-243)—in A.Wolff's History of Science, Technology, and Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries and his similar work on the eighteenth century further introduce and clarify this topic.Hall has been writing about science in the age of the modern scientific revolution and is set to completely rewrite the groundbreaking History of Science (revised 1983).It is worth noting that he predicted that the modern revolutionary period of 300 years from 1500-1800 would be the longest revolutionary period in history. Uncertainties in the history of modern scientific revolutions A little inspection shows that some historians and philosophers of science have been using the concept of modern scientific revolutions for centuries.Before 1950, however, although definite personal views of the modern scientific revolution and of a revolution in science emerged from time to time, these views were never consciously used to organize a historical discussion.People are not very interested in whether there was a modern scientific revolution, the nature of the revolution, its organizational structure, etc.I found little attention to these topics in the writings of historians and philosophers around 1950, in stark contrast to the writings of scientists, especially those who spoke out against the Scientific Revolution.Early historians of science showed how little revolution, especially the modern scientific revolution, played in science by ignoring the use of terms such as "modern scientific revolution."Today's writings on the history of science include some of the various views of the following scholars: "A. Comte was the first to recognize and name the modern scientific revolution"; In the distant 1943, when A.Coyley used this term for the first time, "The term modern scientific revolution summarizes an era and summarizes the characteristics of modern scientific development. I think this term was first used by H. Butterfield in 1948".As far as I know, the only serious effort to trace the origin of the concept of scientific revolution has concluded: "In 1755, D. Diderot introduced the concept of scientific revolution".These examples show that the academic tradition does not include the scientific revolution throughout the 20th century and the theme of the modern scientific revolution. In the 1950s, the widespread dissemination of the theory of the modern scientific revolution was largely due to the efforts of Butterfield and Coyre, whose "Studies on Galileo" was published in France in 1939 and became the A casualty of the Great War, it did not appear in academia until the late 1940s.But neither Butterfield nor Coyrey have done more to advance smaller scientific revolutions and employ such concepts, a theme that is not particularly prominent in their writings.So this question is left to T. S．Kuhn resolved that he brought historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science into full awareness of this feature of scientific development, and drew the attention of the academic world to the theme that revolutions do not occur only in science, but整个科学事业的常规。在前几章，我提到这种成就最终与大众对库恩的特殊理论"科学革命的结构"的认同是无关的。同时我还提到他的影响的重要特色是把学者的注意力从学术纷争的观念中转移到个别科学家或派系之间的纷争中。库恩的影响可以看成是把学术界日益增长的对一个大规模的近代科学革命的关注转向个别的小规模科学革命。即使我们认为还有第二，第三或是第四次近代科学革命，与大量科学中的革命相比，这也仅仅是一小部分。此外，库恩从整体上观察了在科学领域的革命并从整体的观点出发对本书中的几场革命（哥白尼，达尔文和爱因斯坦革命）进行了讨论。 关于近代科学革命的研究 很自然地，对近代科学革命的存在的认同刺激了许多新的关于那场革命的性质的研究。其中一项研究导致了推翻A．柯伊雷最热衷的主题，也就是得到H．巴特费尔德认同和响应的主题——在近代科学革命中实验的地位和作用被过分夸大了。尤其是柯伊雷坚持认为据传由伽利略和帕斯卡等人进行的实验记述实际上是哲学的传奇故事，它们是编造出来为他们的研究寻找的冠冕的经验性依据。例如，他认为伽利略并未进行过在《两种新科学》中描述的那次著名的斜塔实验。但柯伊雷通过伽利略的叙述得出对1／10脉冲的不同实验得出的观察结果存在一致性，但当T． B．塞托制造出和伽利略描述的那个实验中相似的仪器并重作这个实验时，他发现很容易达到这种精确度。最近，S．德拉克发现新的手稿证据说明伽利略早期关于运动学的发现是以实验为基础的。当然，柯伊雷强调用新思维看待伽利略的运动的作法是对的，但新思维需要实验来帮助发现，需要把实验当做发现规律的检验标准。 现在正探讨的近代科学革命的另一个方面是炼丹术、炼金术等这类被强调理性科学的学者们忽视的思想背景。这一领域的先锋，并发挥了重大影响的是已故的F．耶茨。我们对这些学科在科学发展上产生的影响，甚至这类研究对牛顿这类人物产生的真实影响进行估价还为时过早。但我们至少可以确切得知牛顿对炼金术和预言学的研究深入持续了多年。若有可能发现他参与到我们称之为非科学领域或非理性思想中的理性活动影响他的科学研究到了何种程度时，这将是富有挑战性的一件事。 对于科学活动的社会结构的研究一直在进行着，一些论著有相当价值，很多学者从社会因素的影响角度发表对近代科学革命的理解。但迄今为止，还存在含糊的被忽视的关于科学革命的心理研究。这是一个无人涉足的领域，这片大有希望的领域可能为科学革命研究开出一个全新的天地，因而在科学及科学活动的学术分析中开创新纪元。