Summaries of Chapters from I. Bernhard Cohen, Revolution in Science
Craig Armstrong
Bernard Cohen tries to explain the question of whether the historical development of the idea of a revolution, is a feature of scientific change which led to the writting of this book. Cohen declares it a revolution when there is historical evidence of contemporaneous observers and participants. He finds the purpose of this book is to be able to analyze those events and interpret them as a revolution. Cohen defines a revolution as a means to return again, to go through a circular success and implies that an entirely new story, never known or told before is going to unfold. Cohen also believes that a scientific and social or political revolutions are the same. I very much disagree. I think that a political or social revolution effects society much quicker than a scientific one. The political system can develope a theory that can be put into practice and create an immediate social revolution. A scientific revolution would take much longer to effect society because it takes very long to publish there ideas.
Charles Barker
This chapter examines the three stages of how a scientific revolution comes into being, and the characteristics of these three stages. The first stage, an INTELLECTUAL revolution, is what a scientist comes up with for an idea to explain a problem in a new way. This first step is proceeded by the second stage, REVOLUTION ON PAPER. This second stage leads the scientists private thoughts onto paper and public display. The new ideas are showed to colleages, friends, and to the world of science. Today this revolution on paper is done by publishing work in some type of scientific journal. The last stage, a REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE, only becomes a new revolution when it is accepted by the large portion of the scientific community. However, a revolution in science may not happen at the time of puplic display. If the new science is not accepted at that time it may take years, decades, or even centuries before it is reviewed again and finally becomes a revolution in science.
Tad Brown
Scientist and observers in science have tended to call certain events revolution in the four centuries in which modern science has existed. This includes conceptual change of the fundamental kind, radical alterations in the standard or accepted norm of explanation, and includes new postulates that embrace some or all of these features.
For test are revieled to define a scientific revolution; test one,the testemony of contemporaneous witnesses (Lavoisier, Darwin, and Wegener each proclaimed that his work would create a revolution). Test two, an examination of the later documentary history of the subject in which the revolution is said to have occured. Test three, corroborated judgement of their contempoaries, judgement of competant historians notible in science, of the present and past. finally , test four, applied to the statistical revolution, the general opinion of working scientist in the field study today.
Stan Dovholukd, poet lauriate and new poppa
'Re-volvere', 'revolutio', 'ratare', 'metabole kai stasis', 'novae
res', 'novis rebus studere', rotatio, Okay I'll stop! Is your head
spinning yet? Oh sorry, revolving or rotating! After reading the
exciting
historical run-down of how the derivation of the word revolution has
come to be I feel compelled to stabilize your intellectual gyroscope.
Revolution has come to mean something substantially different than
when the Greeks pondered just what a revolution was, and we all know
they
loved to ponder! Revolution first was thought to signify a cyclical,
turn-over, return to the starting point . Something like the concept
of return to the Golden Days, right?
Is the room starting to 'revolve' again? Yes, I'll get to the point.
Revolution, pre- 17th century was construed as a cyclical event,
ebbing
and flowing back to the original event, similar to Plato's buddy
Polybius
reference to political cycles which began with Kingships, regressed
to
tyranny, proceeded through aristocracy into oligarch, into
democracy,
through mob-rule and once again returns to point the original point
. No not generation X!!
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah I know Revolution is blood
and guts. Something
like the Glorious Revolution, right? Wrong! No blood and guts there.
Let's try
the French and American for cinematic appeal. Are you still there?
Okay let's do a quick review of good ole Chapter 4. #4, #4, #4, #4.
Sorry that's #9,#9, #9, #9 remember? I like #7 how about you? Back
to the
show.
Revoution after the 17th century was not associated with the
cyclical, return to pt x concept, instead evolved into a idea of
shifting paradigms (Kuhn). Newness and novelty became associated with
revolutions in science and political spheres, let's say areanas.
I've
developed a phobia for circles. Hey made a mobius lately? It has
been a
pleasure chatting.
Return to Index
Ron Dulong
The Scientific Revolution occured at the same time as other political revolutions such as, the first Civil War in England in 1642, which started just four years before Galileo's "Two New Sciences" was published. So far noone has been able to prove any direct connection between the two forms of revolution.
In the 1600's old principles were tossed to the winds by the likes of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and Bacon. "Traditionally knowledge had been based on faith and insight, on reason and revelation. The new science discarded all of these ways of understanding nature and set up experience-experiment and critical observation-as the foundation and ultimate test of knowledge." (Cohen 79) "...men and women no longer had to believe what was said by eminent authorities; they could put any statement and theory to the test of controlled experience." (Cohen 79) Many of the things that were put to the test were contradictory to the scripture. The existence of animals on the American continent did not agree with the Biblical story of the Noachian flood The word "new" in the title of many published works to describe data collected by this "new" method of observation and experimentation.
QUESTION: "Were these people still prone to persecution for proposing theories that disagreed with the theology of the Church?
"A revolutionary feature of the emerging scientific community was the establishment of a formal information network." (Cohen 82) Institutions formed such as the "Galilean Academia" where scientists could gather and discuss their observations. Correspondence occured through the publication of journals and reports. Collections of these findings were printed in publications such as the "Philisophical Transactions".
Rose-Marie Follansbee
The Copernican Revolution is a conceptual revolution, a transformation in man's conception of the universe and of his own relation to it.
3 meanings:
The historians and philosophers who supported a Copernican Revolution granted Copernicus a place in Science's history not through his actual theories he proposed, but by the concepts involved in developing his theories. It wasn't a revolution at the time Copernicus lived, but became one as others in later times, 75 years or so, proclaimed.
Copernicus developed a concept of spheres based on ancient concepts of Eudoxus and Aristotle. Copernicus made contributions in astronomy by:
Copernicus book De Revolutionibus published in 1633 was placed in the Index Librorum Prohibitorium with a condition, "until it was corrected". It also caused controversy with the Catholic church whereby the church pointed out the problems and demanded these corrections be made immediately. Those corrections chiefly in changing certain statements to hypothetical from factual. The Catholic church was opposed to Copernicus presenting his theories as though they were fact. They probably considered Copernicus theories to be some form of heresy.
Newton's Principia of the 17th century is considered to be the first scientific revolution in the history of Science. And though Copernicus made contributions to Science, his ideas were not considered to create or spark a revolution. According to Cohen, Kepler's theories made more advances in stronomy than Copernicus.
Chet Gage
Kepler, with his three laws of planetary motion based on physical causes, failed the tests for a scientific revolution. It was considered a revolution on paper, but astronomers who came after Kepler did not fully accept his work.
Gilbert claimed to have produced a "new physiology" based on arguments and experimentation. He said that the earth is a great magnet that has a north and south pole and rotates on its axis. Gilbert failed in changing science in a radical way and did not convince historians or scientists of a revolution.
Galileo succeeded in producing a revolution in science. He convinced the people of his time as well as his contemporaries of his discoveries in astronomy, laws of motion, and experimental science.
Although Kepler and Gilbert's revolutionary ideas turned out to
be right, only Galileo succeeded in convincing his peers and
contemporaries of his dicoveries and methods and passing the tests
for a revolution in science.
Chapter 9 - Bacon & Descartes
The major theme of this chapter was the application of a
scientific method to experimentation and research. Bacon and
Descartes were the two major influences of this shift from the
authority of the church and other intellectuals to a more empirical
approach to science.
Francis Bacon was somewhat of the "spokesman" for the new type
of science being practiced. Cohen tells us that "Bacon attacked the
sterility of pure deductive logic, which can never increase
knowledge". Bacon proposed a new approach that used experimentally
based induction that would provide masses of informational facts that
could be drawn upon to further knowledge.
Descartes also felt that experimentation is the key to
furthering the sciences. In his 'Discourse on Method', he states that
the goal of science is to better man's existence. To that end he felt
that the invention of devices would further the research and learning.
His 'Discourse' was "for the correct use of reason and for seeking
truth in the sciences." Descartes felt that logic alone could not
allow the truth to be known.
Submitted by Benson Goodwin
Return to Index
Rick Hussey
Andreas Vesalius was a founder of anatomical science. He published his great book On the Construction of the Human Body in 1543. He showed a great deal of independence. For example, for his annual anatomical lecture and demonstration he performed a dissection instead of abiding to the custom in which a surgeon is assigned.
Vesalius was given bodies of criminals to dissect. With this supply Vesalius made a lot of progress in human anatomy. He said that the only way to learn the anatomy of the human body was by direct dissection and observation, not by reading books. He argued that Galen's description of human anatomy was an account of the anatomy of animals and contained alot of errors as far as the human body was concerned.
His role in advancing anatomical science was lessened by the fact that he gave up his studies. He entered the medical practice as a physician. Vesalius' aim was to convince doctors and anatomists of the faults in Galenic anatomy. He wrote a book contradicting Galen's statements and showed his newfound knowledge and how to arrive at these conclusions. This was done by dissection and detailed instructions were given. Vesalius definitely started a reform in the subject of anatomy and form of teaching it. Yet, there was not a true Vesalian Revolution. Even though he is considered the father of modern anatomy, historians of science, biology, medicine, and even anatomy do not claim a Vesalian revolution.
Most historians refer to the ideas of Paracelsus as revolutionary. The life and career of Paracelsus was marked by revolt, rebellion and possibly revolution. When appointed the municipal physician and professor at Basel, he declined to take the normal oath. He declared his disagreement with Galenic principles and publicly burned a copy of the standard text book of the day.
As a scientific revolutionary, Paracelsus was influential in chemistry and medicine. It was believed that an imbalance in the four humors was the cause of disease. Paracelsus said that diseases are the result of causes external to the body. The aim of Paracelsus medicine was to find specific substances for curing each disease. This search was closely related to his views on chemistry. He believed three principles-salt, related to the solid state of any substance; sulfur, related to the flammable or fatty state; and mercury, related to the vaporous or liquid state. He produced new chemicals compounds and invented a new way of producing concentrated alcohol. Again his goal was to find useful substances for the treatment of disease.
There was a Paracelsian movement in medicine and chemistry all over Europe. The strength of the movement can be seen by taking note of the reaction against it. Paracelsian medicine was a revolutionary movement. It passed the test for being as revolution, however as far as being a revolution in science, the historians of then and now give us negative answers. His methods were not right and his reasoning was not convincing. Walter Pagel said that Paracelsus does not stand out as a link in the chain of students of Nature to whom modern science owes its origin, or even as a physician with modern and revolutionary ideas.
Harvey differs from Paracelsus and resmbles Vesalius in that he wrote of Galen with respect, yet also seems to have been pained by having to correct Galenic errors. His book on circulation sets out to establixh a new basis of human and animal physiology that would completely replace the Galenic ideas that had dominated scientific and medical thought. Harvey proposed a closed mechanical system in which the heart pumps blood through the arteries and veins. He also set forth the idea of a single circulatory system.
Harvey's radical reform of biology and the physiological basis of medicine has three aspects; the establishment of experiment and careful direct observation as the means of advancing biology, the introduction of quantitative reasoning as the basis for conclusions about living processes, and the discovery of the circulation. This concept was confirmed by getting a great range of evidence from vivisection, visual observation, and experiment.
There is no doubt of a Harveyan Revolution. A biological one. Back then not everyone accepted this new discovery, but alot of people did. Harvey's arguements, together with his experiments, observations, and reasoning, not only proved the falsity of Galenic doctrines, but at the same time argued for a new scientific idea...the circulation of blood. This is the reason we can say there was a Harveyan Revolution in science. Return to Index
Peter Koerner
The 18th century was noted for two major political revolutionswhich established the usage of the word revolution. As we understand it today - a violent, social or political upheaval that lead to a totally new and differentsocial system or form of political organization. The emergence of the concept of a revolution as a radical change- as a point or break in the system. The word revolution occurs in the description of transition from the first primitive stage of man to the second stage of the organized society. The new sense of revolution as we know it is an event in which something quite new was brought into being. Voltaire mentions a revolution of the human mind and never seemed to mentionthe use of a scientific revolution. In conclusion one may say you can take and comprehend the word revolution in a number of different ways. It all is determined by how you apply the word in any given circumstance.
Deb Parenteau
Lavoisier was the chief author of the chemical revolution and he called it a revolution himself. In fact he predicted the revolution. The most important features of this revolution:
METHOD OF CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE published in 1787 was considered a primary document of the revolution. It is the key to ideas in action. The names of compounds are now based on Lavoisier's analysis of compounds. These names gave formulation to the thoughts of the revolution, for without the names people had no framework in which to think about the concepts. The nomenclature is, I think, the biggest reason that the revolution was so quickly and widely accepted. It gave scientists a common language in which to discuss and explore Lavoisier's theory. Return to Index
Ch. 17 The Industial Revolution
Deborah Wilson
Industrial revolution was not a revolution in science, and covered the same time span as the American, French and chemical revolutions. It was considered at the time a revolution in human affairs. As we disscussed in class it moved the farmer to the city where he became a factory worker. It brought about a change in economics and growth. It also changed our economics from boughter, and trake to currency. Was easy for the rich to become richer, because they could exploit the industry, no regulations at that time on stocks or environmental laws. Made a middle class, people worked longer hours, had to buy their food could not grow it, buy fuel (coal), could not go cut a tree down or burn dung. Because of the need for coal as fuel this made advancements in digging for cal and getting it to market. Building of canals and steam engines. Which means we needed more skilled workers, as well as educated ones. The industrial revolution is hard to put in a time table, it covered a long period, and many feel it is still on going. New area of revolution is in communications. The industrial revolution also made interaction between countries because of trade. Return to Index
Tylor Young
The nineteenth century saw many political revolutions beginning with the French Revolution and culminating with the Russian Revolution in 1905. This century was also the era of evolution, a concept that was brought forward by Charles Darwin. Darwinian evolution changed the course of the natural sciences, namely biology, and influenced sociology, political science and anthropology. This idea of evolution contributed to one of the greatest revolutions in science.
The word revolution lost its original meaning around this this time. It was originally a word meaning a return, cycle or ebb and flow. It now became a single event that overturned a political system and set up a new one. The nineteenth century was a time that people became aware that a scientific revolution was happening. People also began to recognize the industrial revolution as an actual event. Toward the end of the century, people began to shift their views from revolution to evolution.
Geologic thought changed in this century. Previously, the concept of catastrophic event or a Genesis type idea was the rule. Now people began to accept a evolutionary concept in terms of how the world began. Darwin was at the head of this radical change of thought. He stated that when his ideas were accepted, there would be a considerable revolution in biology. He was correct, and because of Darwin we needed a new vocabulary in science and textbooks needed to be rewritten.
Darwin gave us a new objective, our mind-set was now that of gradual changes and how they affect life as opposed to radical, instant changes. our method of looking at things changed (gradually) to a concept of evolution versus revolution.
Craig Armstrong
The Darwinian revolution destroyed the anthropocentric concept of the universe and it created a new way of thinking. This is the only biological revolution to be mentioned amoung great revolutions in science. This revolution showed the first full presentation of the theory that contained a formal announcement that it would produce a revolution. Darwin says, "When the ideas advanced by me in this volume, or when analogous views on the origin of species are generally admitted, we can dimly foresee that there will be a considerable revolution in natural history". Darwins famous theory of natural selection says that nature is the one that causes the change, not the creator. He tried to show the confirmation of the law that existing animals have a close relation in form with extinct species. Darwins announcement of natural selection came after he recieved a short paper from Wallace, this paper was supposed to be sent to Lyell. This paper contained the last piece for Darwin's own theory of evolution, so instead Darwin used this new information to finish his theory. Many scientists did not agree with this new theory, and Darwin recieved some critizisum. I the long run this theory was proved to be a REVOLUTION! Return to Index
Charles Barker
This chapter discusses the theories of electricity, magnetism, light, and the forces that are responsible for these properties. These were brought forth by the collective works of Faraday, Maxwell, and Hertz. The basis of the work by Maxwell on "Lines of Force" were taken from the ideas and papers of Faraday. Maxwell used these ideas and designed a mathematical explination to them. Hertz proceeded to take the theories of Faraday, the calculations of Maxwell, and test and prove these, which became a revolution in sciece.
This revolution, sometimes called Maxwellian, is different from other revolutions in that it was the collective work of three men that brought about a new thought in classical physics during the nineteen century. This new approach to physics helped in the advancement of relativity and quantum theory in the twentieth century.
Submitted by Tad Brown
Most revolutions put forth features of continuity. The most excitingly unique ideas prove repetively to become modest transformations of existing traditional ideas.
Leanard Wilson concluded after reviewing Chales Lyells' book PRINCIPALS OF GEOLOGY, causes never acted in different degrees of energy from the past history to the present time. The book examines the changes of the earths surface in reference to causes now set forth. Lyells' ideas were viewed as revolutionary because he did not tie his thinking in earth science equally conditioned to the ideas he set forth. Lyell presented new ideas.
Historians argue on degrees of newness. Total newness tends not to be defining features of revolution. Lyllian'revolution ideas were not equally conditioned to thinking in earth science. Effects of revolution were limited not being the existant all together.
Rudolf Carl Virchow published CELLULAR PATHOLOGY. The book was described as great treaties. The ideas provocted a revolution in biology. Virchow stated that a cell is a fundemental unit under all conditions of desease, and that deseases are disturbances of the living cells. Virchow was involved with the development of biological concepts. Virchoe stated that revolutions in science and in the politics might influence and even reinforce each other. Virchow was an important political leaderas a member of the Prussian Parlament representing the German Progrssive Party. Virchow was an opposition to theBismark in Parliament. Virchow was challengeg to a duel set forth in reference of Bismark. Virchow did not accept. Virchow comgined ideas of political revolution with medical reform and became a founder in the then new science of Anthropolgy.
The nineteenth century produced advances in science; non Eudidean geometry, ventor analysis, mathematical statistics, and quarternions. Standards of rigor transformed classical analysis or functional theory.
George Cantor produced new branches of mathematics, transfinite number theory. Cantor was aware of his advancements and stated that his work was revolutionary.
William Rowan Hamilton also states revolutionary advancement. Hamilton revieled methods of approximating the charactoristic function in order to relate it to the perturbations of planets and comets.
Quarternions was the second advancement. This displayed a system of three dementional complex numbers, which could be used in a way similar to vector analysis. Vector analysis was a system of language dynamics and mathematical physics invented by J. Willard Gibbs. This eventually replaced quaternions as a language of dynamics and mathematical physics.
Adolphe Quetelet was concerned with relations pertaining to certain numerical constancies or regularities in births, deaths, crimes, and marriage. Laplace related mathematical theory, application of moral statistics to the analytical society, and the introduction of statistical basis for science. Probabilities and statistics are noted a developtments.
William Coleman studied life science advancementsin provocking revolution. Coleman stated that revolution was an awareness of mans past.
The greatest invention of the nineteenth century was the method of envention. The fundemental scientific knowledge alters the developtment of materials in lives and the environment.
Benjamin Franklin research the electrostatic induction. The study yielded lighting discharge identified as an electrical phenomenon. The nature of glow, spark and brush dicharges were anylized in reference to grounding. Shapes of bodies and their electrical properties were also analyzed.
The ninteenth century yeilded revolutionary change in the effects of science. The dye industry first showed technological developments and power. Unsuitable dies are explosive. The indigo value dropped by more than half its worth. This created increased application in the field of chemistry.
Revolution exhibits features of continuity and changes in tradition. Developments in science transform from existing thought processes.
Rick Hussey
Alfred Wegener was an astronomer and meteorologist and come up with the theory of Continental Motion. In 1910, Wegener was struck by the way the coastlines on the two sides of the atlantic fit together. This suggested to him the possibility of lateral motion of the continents. However, he dismissed this idea as improbable. He then discovered the similarity of fossils on both continents and therefore thought again that they were connected. Wegener transformed his earlier ideas of continental drift into a working scientific concept. His ideas on this subject were published in 1912 and 1915. His arguments were based on geological and paleontologcal evidence, not mere pattern fitting. However, Wegener admitted that the complete solution of the problem would still be a long time coming.
Though his theory of continental drift was only a revolution on paper, it did attract alot of attention and followers. his hypothesis did arouse hostility. To geologists and geophysicists it was absurd to suggest that continents might have lateral motion to another. Wegener lacked the credentials, was attacked for his methods, and was considered an outsider in his field. These were some major reasons why his concepts were only a revolution on paper.
There have been two radical innovations that separate the age of the revolution on paper from the present. The first is the accumulation of new and incoming evidence that continents and ocean floors are indeed real entities that have moved with respect to another. The second is a restatement of the theory that has altered the fundamental concepts as to make it problematic whether the revolution that was ultimately achieved can be legitimately be identified as the attempted revolution which failed for almost half a century.
The current idea is that large blocks or plates covering the earth's surface move and that some of these may carry continents or parts of continents, together with the ocean floor. So, the theory of individual continents in motion has been replaced by a different theory in which the motion of the continents is, but the visible part of a more fundamental motion.
Harry Hess proposed that the great ridges running down the center of oceans are outlets for the up-pouring of molten material from the earth's crust. This matter spreads out on both sides of the ridge, where it cools and solidifies. It becomes part of the old crust. As this crust grows, the material (a plate) moves laterally away from the ridge. The earth does not expand so the plate cannot simply expand with the addition of new matter. At the margin furthest away from the ridge, the plate slides beneath another one, going down into the mantle in an oceanic trench where it releases water and becomes molten again. Through this process South America and Africa continually spread apart. They used to be joined.
The shift in earth science from stabilism to mobilism is undoubtetly a revolution according the the four major tests. The magnitude of the revolution was considered a major-sub revolution. To any outside observer, the magnitude of this shift would suggest a great revolution. Return to Index
Submitted by Peter Koerner
Throughout this book many topics have not yet been discussed. We consider that a conversion of anything is a phenomenon. Max Planck quoted, "new scientific truth does not truimph by convincing it's opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it's opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is farmiliar with it." A change by many is believed to be a traumatic expierence, yet new ideas enter peoples minds everyday and make them rethink about what they have already established. T.S. Kuhn stated this about conversions,"He said in two phrases: an irreversible "gestalt switch" and a "conversion expierence." Most often the word conversion is used by a scientist just to imagine the image of change. H.C. Watson called Darwin, "the greatest revolutionist in natural history." Some scientist believe that there is a strong correlation between both science and religious conversions. If science today is a revolutionary change then a conversion is a radical change and is an acceptance of a totally new phenomena. We realize that a conversion and revolutions come about, and all of a sudden once you have established some substantial evidence something you missed comes back to hit you. We can say that a revolution and a conversion work in a circular effect because the evidence that you have predicted always comes back. Return to Index