This sample of an academic paper on Scientific Revolution Dbq reveals arguments and important aspects of this topic. Read this essay’s introduction, body paragraphs and the conclusion below.
Between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, natural philosophers, now known as scientists, founded a new world view on science, which was previously based on the Bible and classic philosophers like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Both people connected their natural studies directly to God and the Bible, creating ideas like a geocentric earth. With time and new ideas, scientists managed to developed methods for creating and discovering things in nature, and with enough resources and patronage, were able to answer asked and unasked questions.
Science, however, was not supported by everyone, and had to face many challenges to achieve the power it maintains in today’s world. Due to the strong authority that politics, religion, and common social order controlled in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, science was subjectively held in the hands of those who could utilize it or reject it.
Religious authority typically rejected scientific ideas. In Document 12, Gottfried Leibniz stated in his book that he believed God “governs minds as a Prince governs his subjects”.
The ideas that God puts forth in the Bible are that of truth-?despite the science that strenuously prove it incorrect. Scientists had to keep their scientific studies and experiments secretive cause much of what they proved contradicted Church teachings. In Document 1, Nicolas Copernicus speaks to Pope Paul Ill in his 1543 book, On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres, asking for his support of the sciences, and telling him that the fate of scientific research lies in his hands.
You, by your influence and judgment, can readily hold the slanders from biting,” Copernicus claims, “Mathematics are for mathematicians, and they, if I be not wholly deceived, will hold that my labors contribute even to the well being of the Church. ” This being, Copernicus hopes for the Church’s adoption f science, but knows that it is an obstacle to scientific research. Similarly, Document 3, a letter written by Giovanni Compile to Galileo in 161 5, contains a monk asking Galileo to defer his followers to religious authority when examining scientific matters. It is indispensable, therefore, to remove the possibility Of malignant rumors by repeatedly showing your willingness to defer to the authority of those who have jurisdiction over the human intellect,” Compile claims as he knew science would constantly be questioned. He believed the church had the ultimate, final say in what was scientifically accurate, therefore limiting the credibility of proven scientific research. In conclusion, the church had little acceptance of the new teachings of natural philosophy.
Society, for the most part, also rejected scientific ideas. In Document 5, for example, Marine Emergence, a French monk and natural philosopher, writes to his noble patron asking for none else but approval of his research, which he and hundreds of other scientists have already painstakingly and carefully proved true. In this, the nobleman who funds his work has total control over what is published as scientific fact. My book is still in your hands and subject to your private judgment.
If you object to anything, I am ready to remove it entirely,” Emergence vows his patron, “At least I am assured my experiments have been repeated more than 30 times, and some more than 100 times, before reliable witnesses, all who agree with my conclusions,” he adds on knowingly. Even if scientific research is proved to be correct, its “validity” is still subject to the opinions of the person who funds it. The time’s mindset of social order also held women back from being able to study science and become known scientists.
Document 9, a book geared toward a typically female audience, shows Margaret Cavendish desire to be able to explore the subject of natural philosophy, but because of her gender, simply cannot. Cavendish states that if she had the ability, she would set up her own school of natural philosophy, but that “I, being a woman, do fear they would soon cast me out of their schools. ” This limits a whole gender of people who might have contributions they could make to science. Society also had the right to question the authority of scientists, and often wondered if what they were reading was right or wrong.
In Document 7, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, author of the Leviathan, writes that “the doctrine of what is right and wrong is perpetually disputed both by the pen and by the sword, but geometry is not. ” He believed that in an insignificant field like geometry, very few men cared if what they were finding out was true or false because nobody s ambition or profit depended on it. Hobbes points out, however, that if a mathematician’s idea conflicts the idea of another man with power, the thought would be challenged.
Because of society’s patterns of natural order, even if the mathematician is right, the ruler cannot allow the one who is of lesser power to be correct. This therefore shows how the power of an old, flawed idea restricts the emergence of a valid, new one. As a result of a flood of new scientific ideas, society, for the most part, stuck to their original archetypes, and rejected scientific ideas. While the Church and the traditional order of thought seem to reject the idea of allowing new inventions and theories into their perfectly contented society, they both do not seem to realize how science can make their practices even stronger.
In terms of religious practices, Document 2, for example, features a passage from John Calvin as he explains why science only further proves God. ‘This study should not be prohibited, nor this science condemned, because some frantic persons boldly reject whatever is unknown to them,” Calvin explains, “for astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. ” What is not known, or what cannot be explained, is God to John Calvin.
The complexity of science only proves that there is a God out there. In terms f society, Document 6, a letter written by Secretary of the English Royal Society Henry Oldenburg to Johannes Hovels, states that if educated people formed friendships with other educated people, then it would be “a great aid to the investigation and elucidation of the truth. ” He further concludes the thought by stating that “Philosophy would then be raised to its greatest heights. Not only would science improve the bonds and social aspects of society, but science itself would improve, being that ideas would spread and be debated on a daily basis, requiring all educated people to have the retreat knowledge on the philosophy so they can have conversation with others. With the Church’s and society traditional archetypes’ general rejection Of scientific ideas, natural philosophers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries found one last place that, more than any other power of civilization, were able to use the scientists’ discoveries.
The government grasps the fact that they can utilize scientific research to their best abilities. This is evident in Document 10, a drawing depicting Louis Xiv visit to the French Royal Academy. In this artwork, published in 1671, the king and his posse stand in a room filled with technology’ and discoveries, pointing at different objects with interest. The artist clearly wants the viewer to see how politics find acceptance in the scientific world, and how they glorify the king for doing so.
Similarly, in Document 1 1 , Jean Baptists Collect, a French finance minister, expresses positivist about the influence of science on the government. “Because the splendor and happiness of the State consists not only in maintaining the glory of arms abroad, but also in displaying at home and abundance of wealth and in causing the arts and sciences to flourish,” they state proudly, ‘We have been persuaded for many years to establish several academies for both letters and science. With the employment of scientific discoveries in the government, both can benefit, being that war can become more high tech, and research can be more easily conducted. Considering that the happiness of the state depended on how well science flourished, scientists would then be pressured to keep working toward new technology and improvement of old ones. Natural philosophers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were constantly dependent on the criticism of religion, social archetypes, and politics, as they were the deciding factors to how science would be utilized or rejected.