Shapin’s Scientific Revolution, Essay Example

Shapin’s Scientific Revolution analysis embraces three contentions in the discussion of this phenomenon. The author first advances that there is nothing as scientific invention. In articulating the argument questions regarding what was known, how was it know and who was it for has been the focus of this book. With regards to what was known the author in reality issaying that nothing was because all knowledge propagandized as scientific revolution is immersed in another phase of modernity. Today it is called modernization and social change. In fact the contention isfurther perpetuated that nothing was discovered. Like Christopher Columbus who accidentally landed in West Indies for, India similarly, scientific revolution is only scientific because an elite group made the discovery (Shapin 67).

Essentially, tradition has to be given the honor for what is today is perceived as scientific revolution. Alexandre Tyre was cited as offering authentic insights pertaining to say that the scientific revolution was actually an expression of our ancestors’interest in science that missed attention during their life time. Therefore, they were late in their discoveries, but were never ignorant of their existence. More importantly, scientific revolution has historical significance and is associated with it. it can these be perceived as  merely a multiplicity of stories trying to draw to events of the past. Precisely, knowledge espoused by Aristotle, Galileo, Plato, Socrates among many others formed the basis of the scientific revolution(Shapin 160).

Therefore, in answering the question how was it known is simply expanding on the story telling attitude projected by analysts. While they could not recount every historical event related to the sciences accurately, during or prehistoric times or even as early as 17^th and 18 centuries, they were significant sages in scientific development that were recorded. For example, new science of the 17^th century made history for inventors were unfamiliar with this scientific culture. It has been reiterated in this section that new knowledge isold knowledge,which was discarded as useless because at the time in history immature minds could not grasp its profoundness. ‘No house it built entirely on a virgin foundation’ (Shapin 164). How the scientific knowledge shared during revolution? John Locke advanced the notion of seeing other men’s eyes in understanding knowledge (Shapin 167).

Ultimately, who was this knowledge for? Obviously, this is for philosophers who did not practice research through experiments, case studies and other scientific analyses. In fact it is moving knowledge from speculation into proof. Newton and all the other philosopher expressed sentiments, but there was no evidence to validate these sentiments. Modernity have provided scientist with evidence to pore or dispute hypotheses (Shapin 167).

My personal commentary about Shapin’s scientific evolution relates to its timeliness at this point of history. It has become common knowledge that there is nothing new under the sun. As such, this book merely confirms that much of the philosophies used to guide issues of life are scientific an existed in its peculiar era. For example, history clams that civilizations of the Aztecs and Incas was a scientific evolution. Due to disruptions in history whereby people considered civilized have plundered such scientific developments they are destroyed. However, what is known pertains to experinces of great minds such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle whose work are much alive in modern science today. Besides scientific revolutions in ancient indigenous peoples’ world, history revealed where revolutions among the African diaspora occurred, but they were all considered obsolete overtime.

Shapin eloquently accounted for these salient elements in the scientific evolution culture in not bypassing their significance to history and tradition as an emerging agent. Much of his focus was on 17th century impact of events. The nature of science and its purpose in scientific research was important in distinguishing. Before tradition there was no scientific inquiry formulated by using comprehensive hypotheses, propositions and research questions. According to Shapin this scientific revolution is a call to orderliness among many disciplines. This is where Shapin identifies that natural philosophers’ critics as scandalous.

While not saying it in the same Shapin explored may critical viewpoints in advancing the truth that how science emerged is not different to how critics are trying to say it is being created to today. The major highlight lies in the research process itself. This in my opinion defines tradition in relationship to science. Here is where the boundaries. Therefore, modern scientists have nothing more to boast about than the research and experimentation features of the revolution. Consequently, in defining the revolution in its true context relating how it emerged it could be speculated that it was in response to an awakening for knowing more about knowledge, which was formatted. As such the impression offered that a scientific revolution concerned a upsurge of discoveries and inventions pervading the modern world is a serious misconception.

Importantly, among the three major themes espoused by Shapin is the continual advancement of no new knowledge, rather it is the admitting that there is some virtue in the knowledge worth considering. Up on this realization of traditional worthy science. People festered with notions of disbelief seek evidence. Consequently, knowledge from the revolution is old emerged from tradition and is for cynical unbelievers

References

Shapin, Devon. The Scientific Revolution. Centage. 2011. Print