The Definition of Science (original) (raw)
Related papers
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) could be considered as the Father of the Modern Science and the pioner of the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. In fact, Antonio Rebello (2019) found that Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was central to the Revolution and his work revolutionized the fields of motion and optics, amongst other subjects. He's considered the greatest scientific mind of his time and many compare him to Plato, Aristotle, and Galileo, given the extent to which his discoveries impacted Western thought. Furthermore, Sparknotes (2019) found that sir Isaac Newton's work was the capstone of the Scientific Revolution, utilizing the advances made before him in mathematics, astronomy, and physics to derive a comprehensive understanding of the physical world. Furthermore, Johannes Kepler enunciated his laws of planetary motion in 1618. Galileo determined the laws of gravity and explored the laws of motion on earth. Newton first conclusively affirmed the laws of motion and linked them with Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Before Newton, no one had demonstrated conclusively that the movements of heavenly bodies were related to terrestrial physics. Galileo had suggested this, but was censored by the Church before he was able to do further work to prove his theories.Then, despite the varieties and diverse roots of capitalism, the Newtonianism of the 16th century and the Scientific Revolution of 17th centuries seemed to be the driver of the Industrial Capitalism of the 18th century so called the Carbon-intensive and Resource-intensive Routinized Industrial Capitalism. In fact, The Roots of Progress (2017) found that the Scientific Revolution began in the 1500s ; the Industrial Revolution not until the 1700s. Since industrial progress is in large part technological progress, and technology is in large part applied science, it seems that the Industrial Revolution followed from the Scientific, as a consequence, if not necessarily an inevitable one. Certainly the modern world would not be possible without modern science. They also found that Computers are completely dependent on our understanding of electricity, moderne medicine and agriculture on biology, plastics and metals on chemistry, engine design on thermodynamics. Furthermore, Christian (2004) found that the Industrial Revolution has been one of the most remarkable events in human history, and in the long term its impact on economic development throughout the world has proven to be fundamantal. However, this revolution may have been supported and structured by the Scientific Revolution launched by Isaac Newton during the 17th and 18th centuries in UK. Moreover, Goldstone (2000) found that Newtonian culture, as the manifestation of a mechanistic world-view throughout society, facilitated the development of technological innovation necessary for the Industrial Revolution to take place. Nevertheless, Mieke Molthof (2011) found that it was perhaps not so much Newton's work that directly sparked a range of new inventions, but rather the wide public that put into practice his ideas. For example, Jacob and Steward (2004) state : 'The Principia will always remain a great book, possibly the greatest ever published in science. But it was the practitioners, the audience, the new public, the buyers and consumers of the new science, who made it the cornerstone of Western economic development' (p.15). Secondly, Goldstone (2000) found that the spread of the new approach to knowledge and technological development to those most closely connected to the production process has with little doubt been important for the new scientific methods to be of true significance for the Industrial Revolution. In scientific associations and in other educational institutions that had developed in Britain, mechanistic science was taught and discussed among scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs, and the ways in which this knowledge could be useful for production were explored (Goldstone, 2001). Thirdly, science contributed to the development of the intellectual principles which underlaid the Industrial Revolution by providing the theories upon which technological creativity was ultimately based (Mokyr, 2000b). Furthermore, Mieke Molthof (2011) found that it was the spread of mechanical science to a wider public, in specific to those in close contact with the production process, that allowed for a Newtonian culture to emerge and which promoted the Industrial take off. However, despite all the outcomes it provided, the Newtonian Sciences are limited. In fact, Heylighen (2006) found that it's based in reductionism , determinism, materialism, and a reflection-correspondence view of knowledge. Although it's simple, coherent and intuitive, it ignores or denies human agency, values, creativity and evolution. As a result, emphasis in life science has started to be put on limit the reductionism. For example, emphasis has started to be on Limited or unlimited Rationality and Modernity (cf. Box 5). Furthermore, according to Kaiser MI (2011), the issue of reductionism has a long history in the philosophy of science. It is also a controversial topic in the life sciences themselves and scientific publications referring to reductionism have increased in the last decade. However, in the majority of cases the reference to reductionism is negative : life scientists highlight the « limits of reductionism » by investigating the behavior of complex systems (e.g. Ahn et al. 2006 a, 709 ; Mazzocchi 2008, 10) ; they offer substantial evidence « against reductionism » in biomedical research (Levenstein 2009, 709) ; and they call for a move « beyond » or « away from reductionism and toward a new kind of biology for the 21st century. As a result, Mazzocchi (2008) did build a Post-reductionist approach in science and biology that relies on key notions such as emergence, self-organization and complex causality. This shift has started to play a role into the emergence and development of Complexity Sciences. Key Words : Newtonianism ; Newtonian Sciences ; Scientific Revolution, Industrial Revolution
Towards a Materialist Concept of the History of Science: Renaissance and Enlightenment
Modern European science has its roots in the scientific revolution of the 16th to 18th centuries. The question what created that revolution is addressed from the premise that science does not act on the basis of intrinsic interests but responds to demands from outside. It is argued that the direction science takes is determined by the economic system of society and that during the Renaissance and Enlightenment the determining factor was the need of the developing merchant capitalism and colonial expansion for an accurate determination of longitude at sea, for which competing governments offered substantial rewards. The search for a solution led to more accurate astronomical observations that produced the shift from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican system. This in turn required a shift from Ptolemaic to Newtonian physics. Religion influenced the developments by obstructing scientific progress in countries under Catholic control and shifting publication of new findings to protestant countries, but it was not the determining factor for the direction science took during the period. The interest of the Papacy to improve the calendar contributed to the improvements of astronomical observations but was not the main cause for the revolutionary scientific developments.
The role of the mechanical clock in medieval science
The invention and spread of the mechanical clock is a complex and multifaceted historical phenomenon. Some of these facets, such as its social impact, have been widely studied, but their scientific dimensions have often been dismissed. The mechanical clock was probably born as a scientific instrument for driving a model of the universe, and not only natural philosophers but also kings, nobles and other members of the social elites showed an interest in clocks as scientific instruments. Public clocks later spread a new way of telling time based on equal hours, laying the foundations for changes in time consciousness that would accelerate scientific thinking.
A Brief History and Philosophy of Physics
Given the fact that half the world's population is female, there is a notable absence of women in this history. This is largely because women have been systematically excluded from science over the centuries until very recently, with few exceptions. Even when women did make major contributions as part of a larger team in relatively recent times, as was the case of the women "computers" in astronomy at Harvard College Observatory in the late 1800s, usually only the male team leader gained recognition [Rossiter]. One can only mourn the loss to the discipline from the exclusion of other Marie Curies, and work towards encouraging the participation of many more women in the future.
Was there a Scientific Revolution?
European Review, 2007
During the middle decades of the twentieth century, the Scientific Revolution came to be understood as a key period in Western history. Recently, historians have cast doubt upon this category, questioning whether the relevant institutions and practices of the seventeenth century are similar enough to modern science to warrant the label ‘scientific’. A central focus of their criticisms has been the identity of natural philosophy – the major discipline concerned with the study of nature in the early modern period – and its differences from modern science. This paper explores natural philosophy and its relation to philosophy more generally. It concludes that a significant philosophical revolution took place in the seventeenth century, and that this was important for the subsequent emergence of modern science.
On the Justifiability of Establishing a Science of Time
6th International Conference of the Balkan Physical Union BPU6, Istanbul – Turkey 22-26. August 2006, Book of Abstracts , 2006
Physicists think that they are the ones who will have the last say about time and answer the questions: what is time, how is it manifested, how is it measured, as well as a series of other questions that appear when we think about time. Biologists, psychologists and philosophers do not believe that physicists have a monopoly on the topics dealing with time. Dissentions of the kind have led us to consider time as a phenomenon that needs to be studied in a multidisciplinary scientific way. Time is a subject of scientists, artists, philosophers, theologians, spiritists, as well as all the others who build the form and define the content of human spirit. Science is the leading category of human mind and leads civilization to factual truths. This is an attempt to give the reasons for establishing the science of time.