Minerva

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 353–373 | Cite as

What’s Wrong with Talking About the Scientific Revolution? Applying Lessons from History of Science to Applied Fields of Science Studies

Essay Review

Abstract

Since the mid-twentieth century, the ‘Scientific Revolution’ has arguably occupied centre stage in most Westerners’, and many non-Westerners’, conceptions of science history. Yet among history of science specialists that position has been profoundly contested. Most radically, historians Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams in 1993 proposed to demolish the prevailing ‘big picture’ which posited that the Scientific Revolution marked the origin of modern science. They proposed a new big picture in which science is seen as a distinctly modern, western phenomenon rather than a human universal, that it was invented in the Age of Revolutions 1760–1848, and that science be de-centred within the new big picture: treated as just one of many forms of human knowledge-seeking activity. Their paper is one of the most highly cited in the history of science field, and has the potential to transform the way that science educators, science communicators, science policy-makers and scientists view science. Yet the paper and historians’ scholarly response to it are not well-known outside the history discipline. Here I attempt to bridge that disciplinary gap with a review of scholarly papers published 1994–2014 that cited Cunningham and Williams or otherwise discussed the Scientific Revolution, to gauge the extent of support for the old and new big pictures. I find that the old big picture is disintegrating and lacks active defenders, while many scholars support aspects of the new big picture. I discuss the significance of this for scholars in ‘applied’ fields of science studies such as education, communication and policy.

Keywords

History of knowledge History of science Non-western science Science communication Science education Science policy 

Supplementary material

11024_2016_9299_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (242 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 243 kb)

References

  1. Biagioli, Mario. 1998. The Scientific Revolution is undead. Configurations 6(2): 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chambers, David Wade, and Richard Gillespie. 2000. Locality in the history of science: Colonial science, technoscience, and indigenous knowledge. Osiris 15: 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, H. Floris. 1999. The Scientific Revolution: Has there been a British view? A personal assessment. History of Science 37(1): 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook, Harold J. 2011. The history of medicine and the Scientific Revolution. Isis 102(1): 102–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cunningham, Andrew. 1988. Getting the game right: Some plain words on the identity and invention of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 19(3): 365–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cunningham, Andrew, and Perry Williams. 1993. De-centring the ‘big picture’: The Origins of Modern Science and the modern origins of science. The British Journal for the History of Science 26(4): 407–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Chadarevian, Soraya. 2009. Microstudies versus big picture accounts? Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dear, Peter. 1995. Cultural history of science: An overview with reflections. Science, Technology, & Human Values 20(2): 150–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dear, Peter. 1998. The mathematical principles of natural philosophy: Toward a heuristic narrative for the Scientific Revolution. Configurations 6(2): 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dear, Peter. 2001. Religion, science and natural philosophy: Thoughts on Cunningham’s thesis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 32(2): 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dear, Peter. 2012a. Historiography of not-so-recent science. History of Science 50: 197–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dear, Peter. 2012b. Science is dead; long live science. Osiris 27(1): 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dobbs, B.J.T. 1994. Newton as final cause and first mover. Isis 85(4): 633–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feldhay, Rivka. 1994. Narrative constraints on historical writing: The case of the Scientific Revolution. Science in Context 7(1): 7–24. doi:10.1017/S0269889700001563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Findlen, Paula. 1998. Between Carnival and Lent: The Scientific Revolution at the margins of culture. Configurations 6(2): 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaukroger, Stephen. 2002. The historical aims of science. The British Journal for the History of Philosophy 10(2): 277–288. doi:10.1080/09608780210123382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Golinski, Jan. 2012. Is it time to forget science? Reflections on singular science and its history. Osiris 27(1): 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hellyer, Marcus (ed.). 2003. The Scientific Revolution: The essential readings. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Henry, John. 1997. The Scientific Revolution and the origins of modern science. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johns, Adrian. 1999. Identity, practice, and trust in early modern natural philosophy. The Historical Journal 42(4): 1125–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mayer, Anna-K. 2004. Setting up a discipline, II: British history of science and “the end of ideology”, 1931–1948. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 35: 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Merchant, Carolyn. 2006. The Scientific Revolution and The Death of Nature. Isis 97(3): 513–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Narasimha, Roddam. 2003. The Indian half of Needham’s question: Some thoughts on axioms, models, algorithms, and computational positivism. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 28(1): 54–66. doi:10.1179/030801803225010340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Brien, Patrick. 2013. Historical foundations for a global perspective on the emergence of a western European regime for the discovery, development, and diffusion of useful and reliable knowledge. Journal of Global History 8: 1–24. doi:10.1017/S1740022813000028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Osler, Margaret J. 1998. Essay review: Medieval natural philosophy in context. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29(2): 305–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peltonen, Markku. 1999. Book review: A revisionist history of the Scientific Revolution. Social Epistemology 13(3/4): 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pickstone, John V. 2007. Working knowledges before and after circa 1800: Practices and disciplines in the history of science, technology and medicine. Isis 98(3): 489–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raven, Diederick. 2011. What needs to be explained about modern science? The British Journal for the History of Science 44(3): 449–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rochberg, Francesca. 2010. Beyond binarism in Babylon. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 35(3–4): 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shapin, Steven. 1996. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, Pamela H. 2009. Science on the move: Recent trends in the history of early modern science. Renaissance Quarterly 62(2): 345–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Szmrecsányi, Tamás. 2009. Periodization problems in the economic history of science and technology. Investigaciones de Historia Económica 5(15): 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tosh, Nick. 2003. Anachronism and retrospective explanation: In defence of a present-centred history of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 34: 647–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xu, Ting, and Khodadad Rezakhani. 2012. Reorienting the discovery machine: Perspectives from China and Islamdom on Toby Huff’s Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective. Journal of World History 23(2): 401–412. doi:10.1353/jwh.2012.0058.Google Scholar
  36. Yousefi, Najmal-Din. 2008. Secular sciences and the question of “decline”. Iranian Studies 41(4): 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of ScienceThe Australian National UniversityActonAustralia

Personalised recommendations