Talk:Scientific Revolution/Archive 3

3279:

scientific inquiry to Christian metaphysics, but an equally unbalanced omission not to recognize that all inquiry into truths (of various kinds) stem from a common wellspring in human nature, and which also find expression in such things as Christian metaphysics. Moreover, scientific inquiry developed within a social context which already had a long-established world view that included both ancient research and a Christian religious belief that interpreted much of what had come before. Clashes between scientific advances and certain religious authorities (discontinuously) are well-recognized but poorly understood and often mischaracterized. Science is a tool based upon human inquiry and reasoned understanding. But the elevation of human reason into a "highest of all possible" inquiries is a metaphysical idea, not a scientific one. There are still intersecting points and overlaps, and always will be, and the scientific revolution, for all its advertised prominence in overturning of an older worldview, was not alone in establishing or maintaining a new one. Scholarly views of these relations are, of course, what we need for the article, but I am arguing that they have a definite and notable place to fill here.

1558:

here?!?!? I submit that the Scientific Revolution did not "begin" in Europe, rather it occured in European culture. Of course, the European Empires during the period spread the ideas and methods to the world. It was sparked by Copernicus? Garbage! Its impact can be seen by the publication, in 1543, of Copernicus' ... This article confuses cause and effect! Wasn't the "spark" the accumulation of facts contradicting those of the Greek philosophers? As well as the ability to disseminate new findings much more broadly (and quickly) than in the past? And finally, since time does not permit me to trash the whole thing, under Significance The "science" of the middle ages - ??? - should be the natural philosophy of the middle ages. there was no "science" as we understand the term. AND the last sentence first paragraph is a total non sequitur. Despite some challenges to the religious views...terrible. totally isolated and either needs some discussion of where "religious views" comes from (and why) or needs to be removed.15:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

374:

Newton's law/dynamics, is both false and also apparently unsourced unless Drake also makes this claim in the same article. In Aristotle's physics 'violent' motion is motion against nature/gravity and requires some countervailing force to overcome that of nature/gravity, but such motion also requires some countervailing force in Newton's dynamics. To put this in simple terms for such as professors of the history of science, thus for example moving a book from the floor to put it on a shelf requires an external upward force to move it upwards in violent motion against its own weight. Or if one were to identify 'natural' motion in Newton's dynamics with inertial motion, that is, motion caused only by the inherent force of inertia, and identify violent motion with accelerated motion, then Newton's first law says non-natural or 'violent' motion is caused by an impressed force, which is an external force, unlike the force of inertia, which is an internal force.

601:

corporis fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human body). As with many historical demarcations, historians of science disagree about its boundaries. Although the period is commonly dated to the 16th and 17th centuries, some see elements contributing to the revolution as early as the middle ages, and finding its last stages in chemistry and biology in the 18th and 19th centuries. There is general agreement, however, that the intervening period saw a fundamental transformation in scientific ideas in physics, astronomy, and biology, in institutions supporting scientific investigation, and in the more widely held picture of the universe. As a result, the scientific revolution is commonly viewed as a foundation and origin of modern science. The "Continuity Thesis" is the opposing view that there was no radical discontinuity between the development of science in the Middle Ages and later developments in the Renaissance and early modern period.

676:

factor in this change was the revival of (Greek) skepticism from 1562 onwards. Scholasticism says there are higher truths we can attain via reason and/or revelation; skepticism says there aren't higher truths, we can only acquire knowledge through sense and since the world is in permanent flux there are no unchanging truths. Francisco Sanches (in That Nothing is Known) accepts this and proposes advancing wisdom through tentative and reviewable observation-based ideas - science in a nutshell. I don't say that Sanches single-handedly made science possible, only that the suddenness of the emergence of investigative, experimental science is explained by the dethronement of apriorism by skepticism in the close of the C16th, specifically by the publication of Sextus Empiricus in 1562.

3007:

outlook but most of his assumptions about the physical world were highly misleading. Bacon attacked him as lightweight and said that more attention should be given to later Greek scientists. 2. Aristotle was a much better biologist (and logician) than physicist. His biology is largely observation whereas in physics it only affected his basic assumptions: if he got those slightly wrong everything went awry, particularly meanings of terms. e.g. his idea of gravity and levity and motion misled everyone. Getting these right was very much part of the revolution. 3. Conceptual change is certainly part of the SR but expanding the topic to include every new scientific idea in the 16-18th century, as the present article does, makes the whole notion vacuous.

177:(iii)the internal motive force of the celestial spheres in superlunary motion. It should thus be deleted with the whole senrtence that thus becomes pointless. The essential key difference between Newton's first law and Aristotle's principle of interminable rest or motion in a void is that for Newton the endless rest or motion predicated in his first law would be caused by an internal force according to his Definition 3, namely the inherent force of inertia, whereas for Aristotle and Ockham, for example, it seems it would not be caused by any force at all, neither external nor internal. I shall flag this claim as unsourced in order to try and elicit where Drake makes this mistaken claim and what evidence he provides for it in Aristotle's texts.-- 1835:

civilisations have been developing since the dawn of Modern Man, 50,000 years BP. The so-called scientific revolution is thus quite a different animal to that of e.g the Agricultural Revolution (12,000 yrs BP) or the Industrial Revolution (200 yrs BP). In my opinion attempting to write the article in a manner to intimate that this modern scientific revolution is an established fact, in the same manner as other revolutions, is to inappropriately dignify what seems to me to be merely a point of view. The "point" of the article as it is written is the very thing that causes it to have a non-NPOV.

3390:. Copernicus claimed that all the stars were equidistant from the Sun. If true, his claim would be heliocentrism. His claim is now thought to be completely untrue. There is no reason to refer to the "barycenter" of the selected Solar System only. Copernicus included the supposedly stationary and supposedly equidistant stars. The barycenter of the selected Solar System seems to spend about half the time outside the Sun. It is rarely or never at the center of the Sun. Copernicus and Galileo did not have modern ideas of gravity and did not refer to any barycenter of anything. See 144:

Y, however in actuality, it continued much further as people often mistake the Heliocentric revolution for the scientific revolution." I would do it, but I just finished my 9th grade research paper on the epic battle b/t the Catholic Church and the scientists of the revolution (and I actually found out that the church didn't really care so much except in Galileo's case) and I'm pretty much done for awhile on researching the scientific revolution. That, and I don't know how to cite sources on wikipedia (stupid freakin' research paper, lol :P). Thanks for listening.

542:"All those ancients knew the first law who attributed to atoms in an infinite vacuum a motion which was rectilinear, extremely swift and perpetual because of the lack of resistance...Aristotle was of the same mind, since he expresses his opinion thus..., speaking of motion in the void where there is no impediment he writes: 'Why a body once moved should come to rest anywhere no one can say. For why should it rest here rather than there ? Hence either it will not be moved, or it must be moved indefinitely, unless something stronger impedes it.' " 1817:@ SteveMcCluskey: Steve, please don't change the formating I choose to use. I formatted my suggestion as I did so that OTHERS could QUICKLY identify the fact that a suggestion had been made for a change, and comment on it. Your formatting choice has made it appears to be a dislocated continuation of my comment rather than a suggestion for the text of the article. I realise you don't agree and I respect your opinion. I ask that you respect mine, and have reverted your change. Thank you for recognising that my suggestion was "well meant"! 2104:

the additional translation and the original -- I added the other translation because it was available in the public domain (unlike the modern translation) and so provided a full-text English language version. I added the Italian because it was at Wikisource, and I was glad that it had been added, and wanted to let people know it was there. BTW, did I understand your objection correctly, above, and if so, are you satisfied with the compromise currently on the page?

3201:

that (as such), but (to the extent that 'a sense of the orderliness in experience' correlates with 'aspects of traditonal Christianity') one might see some parallels or correspondence (enough for a somewhat casual observer to intuit a possible relationship, even a causal relationship) between the two (stable organized worldview, as in rationalized, well-developed medieval Christianity, and efforts in rational, methodical, organized, systematic inquiry - science).

31: 2893:

objectivity now allowed us, I think we can "see through" the propaganda and merit Galileo for his real contributions and not his inflated ones. In other words we need not pit the Catholic-conforming Copernicus and Kepler against the unfairly accused "heretic", Galileo. If we give them each where credit is due without promoting one on the basis of being unfairly condemned, I think we can place all in their proper place in history.

1880:: "such are the pure Mathematical sciences, to wit, Geometry and Arithmetick: in which Divine Wisdom knows infinite more propositions, because it knows them all; but I believe that the knowledge of those few comprehended by humane understanding, equalleth the divine, as to the certainty objectivè, for that it arriveth to comprehend the necessity thereof, than which there can be no greater certainty." p. 92 (from the 1025:{{cite encyclopedia | last = Pines | first = Shlomo | title = Abu'l-Barakāt al-Baghdādī , Hibat Allah | encyclopedia = ] | volume = 1 | pages = 26–28 | publisher = Charles Scribner's Sons | location = New York | date = 1970 | isbn = 0684101149 }} (] Abel B. Franco (October 2003). "Avempace, Projectile Motion, and Impetus Theory", ''Journal of the History of Ideas'' '''64''' (4), p. 521-546 .)</ref: --> 2908:

with the Church. I don't see the "Anglo-centric, Protestant-centric" approach you refer to in either the either the present article or the proposed outline. The "it moves" line does not in the present article and insofar as it relates to Galileo's astronomy/cosmology, it won't be very relevant to the proposed outline, which plans to focus on his work in physics (inertial motion, studies of inclined planes, etc.)

1149:

revolution. Note that the rule on wikipedia against POV does not object to presenting the POV of reliable sources like Bernal's particularly in discussions of opinions about a topic (like the scientific revolution). It is standard procedure to leave an unsourced quotation standing with a {{citation needed]] template. If a source is not provided after a reasonable period of time, then the text should be removed.

450:"While preparing a revised edition of his Principia, Newton attributed his law of gravity and his first law of motion to a range of historical figures. Although Newton's law of inertia had several similarities to Aristotle's theory of motion, the salient point is that it differed in key ways, such as an external force being a requirement for violent motion in Aristotle's theory." 238:‘Tis a fine day for American academic history of science, and surely a new nadir for it were that possible, when one has to point out and cite references that natural motion, unlike violent motion, does not require an external mover in Aristotle’s physics, whatever a logically challenged whacky deceased Canadian may have said. But fortunately McCluskey does not claim Drake was a 1787:

body of strict facts, science is a method for determining the truth or falsehood of what we think we know. The very nature of it is to allow a continual refinement of knowledge based on continued observation. The idea that new data, gathered through careful observation and experimentation, should trump the existing body of knowledge was revolutionary.

3110: 250:. Thus hopefully there may be no obstacle to even McCluskey accepting that the following extract from the article on Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy expresses the prevailing standard view, even in America and even whacky California, that natural motion does not require an external force in Aristotle’s 1019:] (1987), "Ibn Sīnā and Buridan on the Motion of the Projectile", ''Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences'' '''500''' (1): 477–482: {{quote|"Thus he considered impetus as proportional to weight times velocity. In other words, his conception of impetus comes very close to the concept of momentum of Newtonian mechanics."}}</ref: --> 2633:

morphed the idea into something rather different which I don't fully understand. The problem seems to be that all the revolutions have been diverted to the Kuhn link - but there should be a discussion rather near the front which points out these issues. If we don't know what the term means, how can we talk about its significance?

2559:

You put it correctly here that Newton claimed Aristotle, "knew" the First Law of Motion (i.e. the "first law"). But your "controversial" claim (the straw man) was different: that Newton meant Aristotle wasn't just in the peanut gallery, but rather that he played a role in "developing" Newton's first

2103:

Thanks for asking. I consider the part after the quote useful because of the mention of "necessity", which makes it clearer why mathematical propositions are considered to have such objective certainty, and the part before because it makes explicit what "few" is intended to refer to. Regarding adding

1887:

In the original Italian: "... tali sono le scienze matematiche pure, cioè la geometria e l’aritmetica, delle quali l’intelletto divino ne sa bene infinite proposizioni di piú, perché le sa tutte, ma di quelle poche intese dall’intelletto umano credo che la cognizione agguagli la divina nella certezza

1698:

be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt." Clearly we have good historical documentation for the research and discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc. Perhaps he is questioning whether modern science is to be preferred, as he suggests it is only a choice on the basis of economy / Occam's Razor.

1128:

I shouldn't have to comment on "replacing fear," but here goes. Are we well ahead fearing the use of atomic weapons quite possibly being planned as we speak/read, as opposed to (say) the crossbow? How about the very real deaths by war in the 20th century, greater than all other ages put together? Are

1080:

and could not really refrain his causticity about Ptolemy's conceptions, as he had done with Aristotle's in his Pisa Tower free fall experiment with balls. He had already a lot of enemies in the University for that, and they clearly stated that if Aristotle and Ptolemy were laughed at this way, there

122:

did not present heliocentrism as hard established fact in its list of Phenomena, as distinct from hypothesis. It seems it was maybe only Bradley's 1729 confirmation of stellar abberration predicted by the twin hypotheses of a finite speed of light and an annual solar orbit by the Earth that completed

2859:

was more influential on Newton than Galileo. Kepler is given credit in his bio (and in your outline, as well). Kepler relinquished the "circling" theory of planets around the sun, correctly guessing that there was "something else" going on, resulting in ellipses. Galileo could hardly improve on this

2616:

Since that controversy has now died down, perhaps it is time to reconsider fundamental revisions to this article. As it stands it has several different overlapping sections (New Ideas, Scientific Developments, Theoretical Developments) which describe the content of the revolution. Some of them are

1786:

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what was revolutionary about the scientific revolution. The issue that many scientific facts turn out to be wrong is not any indication against science, but rather gets to the very heart of why science is so powerful and why it was revolutionary: rather than a

1249:

introduction to the topic. But nor is having a "significance" section appropriate before the topic has already been defined. The Copernican, Newtonian and other revolutions were common parlance long before Kuhn - the term has grown through Koyré and Butterfield before being criticized more recently.

143:

Okay, I guess, but could there be some note in the introduction paragraph for this. This would be very useful to users who are just looking to scratch the surface on the subject. And maybe you could even include something like, "Most people would say that the Scientific revolution lasted from X to

99:

I was taking a look at this article, and the beginning has a rough starting date, however doesn't mention any specific end. I know that it is hard to pin down the dates of the scientific revolution, but many agree that it ended around 1700, and may have continued in some ways into the 19th century,

3200:

I think that the argument could be made that the (social) belief or sense of orderliness in experience ('the belief in an orderly universe') could be credited for the expectation that rational inquiry makes sense (as an investment in time and energy). I don't think that they quotation (above) SAYS

2972:

Thanks for looking over the outline, which may not have been totally clear. The chemical philosophy does not refer to what Butterfield called the delayed revolution in chemistry but to the alchemical movement that influenced the matter theory of Newton, Boyle, and others. I agree we don't want to

2892:

I think we have placed an Anglo-centric, Protestant-centric value on the contribution of Galileo. It was fairly easy to make a post-trial martyr out of him and we have all heard this stated dozens, if not hundreds of times (Heard to mutter "it moves" at the end of his trial). But with a little more

2538:

the quotation with Newton's contentious claim that Aristotle knew the First Law of Motion (i.e., inertia). I am puzzled, however, why you insist on keeping that straw man (to use your terms) in the article. Would you please seriously consider my prior question as to what that misleading quotation

1834:

Returning to the matter at hand, the concept that there has been a "scientific revolution" in recent times is moot, as there are many drivers of any socio-economic etc change that is perceived as having resulted from science in "recent" times. The fact is that science has been transforming the way

1557:

Lead in: The Scientific Revolution is an era...??????? 'Is an era' or 'occurred in an era of increasing fact based knowledge of the natural world'? I vote for latter. An era associated with??? Who wrote this?!! Can we get an articulate native English speaker to fix the myriad of non sequiturs

3120:

added a quote from Joseph Ben-David. The indented text starts italicised but the last parenthetical sentence is not italicised. Is that last sentence part of the quote or not? Normally quotes are not italicised - the italics should be removed, but first we need to be clear as to whether all of the

2951:

But I think the outline still corresponds more to Butterfield's title "The Origins of Modern Science" than to anything which constitutes a revolution. Since the "broad view" of the topic has been exploded by so many people (including Shapin), shouldn't we be taking a narrower view: ie. the radical

2907:

Agree with your comment that we don't want to provide a heroic treatment of Galileo but should limit the discussion to his real contributions to the Scientific Revolution. It shouldn't be much of a problem doing that since, even in its present state, the article doesn't discuss Galileo's conflict

2840:

Agree that Newton stands supreme, but his physics was greatly influenced by that of his predecessors, especially Galileo and Descartes. Galileo contributed substantially to the concept of inertia and to the mathematical understanding of falling bodies. Descartes also contributed to the concept of

2666:

Rather than refer back to an outline in the archives, I'm providing a working outline for discussion here. The most controversial change I'm proposing is to eliminate much of the content in the overlapping lists of discoveries. I feel the article would be more coherent if it focused on the major

2500:

OK, in a while I'll revise that section to strengthen the secondary sources. I've always had problems with the Newton quotation because it was introduced to the article specifically to challenge the model of a Scientific Revolution. Now that we're no longer making that claim, do we really need the

2205:

I was reading along in this article and came across the assertion that Newton's recognition that Aristotle had anticipated aspects of Newton's laws "refutes Kuhn's thesis of a scientific revolution in dynamics". This assertion of a refutation seems a bit more contentious than is appropriate for an

2077:

I'm sorry for not quoting your sentence in full. Thank you for expanding on what you meant -- I take it that your objection is to the inclusion of the extra context around the quote, not the addition of the other translation and original? In case that is correct, I've re-added them to the article,

1790:

Whether any particular person appreciates the outcome of this revolution (i.e. modern life vs. ancient life) isn't material to the discussion: the acceptance of the scientific method by a large number of people changed the world fundamentally. The fact that I'm discussing this through a network of

1638:

of this is based on ease of argument. I don't disagree, but reporting it like the ancients were idiots and we are "smart" is not quite the right tone. These things "just happened" and should reported as sequential facts, not as "progress." When the world ends (or doesn't) in 2100, due to "too much

1132:

To paraphrase a candidate for political office, "Are people better off spiritually today than they were 500 years ago?" There are sufficient material considerations that I don't want to go back. It would be a cultural shock. But I don't kid myself that my distant ancestors didn't feel better about

675:

The critical change in thinking from 16th to 17th century opening the door to methodological science was the abandonment of (church-backed) apriorism as discredited on several fronts (e.g. Reformation, conflict with experience, discoveries overseas) and replacement with empiricism, and the crucial

276:

Hopefully even McCluskey will accept this satisfies his second sufficient justification for deletion, thus saving Logicus the burden of re-reading Drake’s follies. (For the uninformed reader, Drake was the unfortunate anti-Duhemian who claimed Duhem’s thesis that Galileo adopted scholastic impetus

2453:

I'm a little confused why you've deleted Newton's views when you yourself earlier noted that they were sourced (and published). Obviously, Newton couldn't have been making any claims about Kuhn... so while I agree there's no need to muddle this with a separate claim regarding Kuhn, I'm not sure I

1758:

Most science cannot follow it's own stricture of repeatable laboratory tests because the timeline is too huge or the spectrum of data is oversized: evolution and astronomy, for example. For evolutionary changes, scientists simply say at each new finding, "well that must have been more survivable"

600:

The event which many historians of science call the scientific revolution can be dated roughly as having begun in 1543, the year in which Nicolaus Copernicus published his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) and Andreas Vesalius published his De humani

373:

However, unfortunately McCluskey's anticipated restoration of the text just with the added qualifier 'violent' has now impaled it on the other horn of its dilemma, wherein the contrast it now makes with Newton's first law of motion, namely that violent motion does not require an external force in

355:

It is most gratifying that McCluskey accepts that Logicus is right about something and therein also thus that presumably the learned Professor Drake and the American Journal of Physics were wrong and unreliable about something, if Drake did indeed claim an external force is required for motion in

2434:

Drawing on that, Newton's claim that his principle of inertia can be found in the ancients is a part of his practice of "poring over the fragments of the ancients and elaborating dubious genealogies for his doctrines" (McGuire and Rattansi, p. 127). As his modern editors, Hall and Hall (p. 309)

2225:

I don't like the idea of quoting "unpublished" material for such a weighty matter. I've added one. But Newton and his contemporaries were hardly refuting all the ancients. Slavish adulation of the ancients was the problem and failure to build on what the ancients had observed with their mediocre

1719:

among historians of science -- even among those most skeptical of the idea of progress -- that there is a sense in which the science of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton is an improvement over ancient and medieval science. To say that, is not to deny the significant contributions of those earlier

3296:

I'm not opposed to the sentence that has been inserted. The main fault I would find with it is that it doesn't do much to throw light upon just what is the relation between the world views, or between science and metaphysics, theoretically or historically. I think that is why it comes across as

3278:

I think something on this order belongs in the article, in order to counter the popular (but incorrect) notion that religion must be at odds with science. (Note that that notion is found within a Marxist bias, among others.) It would certainly be unbalanced and overstated to ascribe the rise of

3006:

Can I respond to your points? 1. Most scientists did start from Aristotelian assumptions, which by the 16th C were heavily endorsed by the Catholic church, and struggled to frame things differently. He obviously did establish ideas of causation that have given rise to one part of the scientific

1971:

acknowledged that I am keeping an eye on your contributions, and explained why. I have not edited all the pages you have changed, merely the ones that I honestly consider I can improve (as in this case), or where I consider your edits to be making the encyclopedia worse. This is exactly the way

1948:

To respond your argument though, you are right that the original edit (which is not made by me) is a quote of something, that quote doesn't have the word "proposition" after "few", even though "few" refers to "proposition". So, to fix it we add a square bracket on "proposition" or "mathematical

1059:

was extraordinarily upset with the collapse of the geo-centric universe with which people had lived "forever." People of the time had "jobs" for the archangels - they dutifully moved the planets counter-wise (backward) in their orbit "around earth" conveniently (though wrongly) explaining their

939:

whether Newton was right or wrong in his chemical work, but what methods he applied. Frankly I cannot image that a person who did so much for mechanics applied an incorrect methodology for chemistry. Remember that the true criterion for science is not whether a hypothesis is right or wrong, but

2647:

Glad you're considering working on this. I began studying History of Science reading Koyré and Butterfield, and the Halls and Westfall. They defined the Scientific Revolution as that unique historical event influencing all the sciences, which extended chronologically from Copernicus to Newton

2632:

I was hoping to add a little more, but have been waiting for another user to return a library copy of Shapin before committing myself. It seems to me that there were many scientific revolutions talked about in the 18th and 19th century, but the contributions of Koyré and Butterfield and others

1665:

Philosopher and historian Alexandre Koyré coined the term scientific revolution in 1939 to describe the emergence of modern science during the early modern period, when developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, medicine, and chemistry transformed views of society and nature.

1148:

The passage you object to is presented as a quotation from the noted Marxist historian of science, J. D. Bernal. It hasn't yet been provided with an accurate citation, but it does sound like Bernal's point of view and it is appropriate to a discussion of historians' opinions on the scientific

652:

Without authoritative references the mention of Vesalius is out of place in the lead: there is apparently some confusion between the Scientific Revolution as the beginning of the Modern times and a scientific revolution/ paradigm shift in a particular discipline (medicine). There is perhaps an

84:

Several paragraphs contain references to the accomplishments of Muslim scientist. These read like some kind of laundry list and are not tied in to the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th century, which is the subject of this article. If the works of Muslim scientists were known to later

176:

it is nonsense to claim that external force was a requirment for motion in Aristotle's physics. He posited (i) the internal force of nature or gravity in the case of sublunar natural motion, (ii) the internal impressed motive force impressed within the medium in sublunar projectile motion and

2911:

Interestingly, the only mention of religion in the present article is a quotation from J. D. Bernal. The lack of serious treatment of science and religion in the scientific revolution suggests that maybe we should add a discussion of it to the outline. There is an extensive body of serious

2563:

I'd certainly be glad to clarify if I can but there's nothing misleading on the face of it and I don't think you've established that the quote is controversial outside of debates about Kuhn's thesis. So why even use the quote outside of that debate? Well, because in the course of discussing

1248:

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. That citation was originally tagged on the "Marxist" description of Bernal, then moved, then deleted in a general cleanup. But the rest of the paragraph is a reaction to the quote so you may need to remove the whole paragraph. It's certainly not the best

2983:

Second, Aristotle (and the Aristotelians) frequently argued on empirical grounds. Interestingly, Koyré and others (who I'm not trying to defend here) argued that the Scientific Revolution saw the investigation of nature move from a naive Aristotelian empiricism to a Platonic mathematical

1432:

Also, (and this ought to be in Knowledge somewhere), the replacement by Pythagoras and other Greeks had less to do with scientific observation (not that readily available to them) than the ancients belief that "fire (the sun) was superior to earth." Right answer, but really the wrong (and

117:

But not even the simple heliocentric 'revolution', traditionally mistaken for a scientific revolution, had ended by 1700. For example, the great Danish astronomer Ole Roemer who first discovered the speed of light is finite died still a Tychonic geocentrist in 1710, and even Newton's 1726

1398:

As to the elements, although certain chemical substances (e.g., sulfur, iron, copper) were known from antiquity, they were not understood as elements until the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. To interpret the discovery of these substances as a discovery of elements would be truly

3223:

added what seemed to be an exaggerated claim about the influence of "Christian metaphysics" on the rise of science. There is a minority historical claim to that effect, discussed by Lindberg and Numbers in their classic book on science and religion. Since it's not a fringe claim, I

1966:

I'm not sure what you mean by "is essentially stereotyped or just edit disrupt". Could you clarify? I agree that adding the additional versions and extra context is unusual, but I'm not sure how it is disruptive or damaging to the article. Regarding the accusation of wikihounding, I

2180:

Personally, I think that including the rest of the Drake quotation in the main text would make it clearer: "for here it succeeds in understanding necessity, beyond which there can be no greater sureness". Incidentally, though the Drake edition is still in copyright, that part is

1733:

LookingGlass's suggested modification would resolve Student7's concern, but by shifting the focus from the historical concept of the scientific revolution to the term, which seems to miss the focus of the article. The change, while well meant, doesn't seem to be an improvement.

985:. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: 2860:

with his detection of moons "circling" Jupiter. His bio gives him some credit for Newton's theories, but mostly for his improvement of lenses, essential for making observations, and the observational techniques themselves. More of an implementer than a thinker, it would appear.

3228:

to "particular aspects of traditional Christianity" to better reflect the nature of the claim and tweaked the references to include Lindberg and Numbers' cautionary comment. Others may differ but I think it's appropriate as a one-liner; any further emphasis seems excessive.

2818:

Don't understand the emphasis on Galileo and "physics." He ground great lenses for a telescope and (therefore) did first see moons circling a planet. And became the focus of an Inquisition. Great Physicist? I don't know... Great egotist. Great PR. Not that great a physicist

2987:

Third, I'd be reluctant to reduce the Scientific Revolution to a single methodological change. New methodologies are part of the picture, as I've suggested in the sections on Empiricism and Mathematization under New Approaches to Nature, but the SR is about much more than

750:: it clearly cannot be both ! 12th century "Renaissance" is clearly an accepted notion in Europe, though underlooked previously because the tools and methods invented concerned working plain people (peasants) and did not touch leisure classes like the "real" Renaissance. 3297:

perhaps a little pointy or out of place. It's the appearances that are somewhat wrong, not the basis for content. It still looks too much like an unrelated promotion of something Christian, and still too little like the integration with metaphysics that it ought to be.

3179:

An editor keeps putting this line into the ancient and medieval background section; "Some scholars have noted a direct tie between "particular aspects of traditional Christianity" and the rise of science." The sentence seems to be thrown in there randomly and seems

2874:

It's interesting that your comments about Galileo (who my outline places with Descartes and Newton in the section on the New Physics) focuses on his astronomy rather than his physics. These different perceptions indicate why it's so hard to clean up an article like

1075:

From what I read, pope Clement had known Galileo for a long time in his University years, and ordered him the (paid) work of comparing the two systems as well as impartially he could and draw conclusions. However, Galileo was as bright and caustic as our

2651:

Although more recent writers question the validity and usefulness of the concept, it is one of those historical terms (like Feudalism) which, while challenged by scholars, still has popular meaning. It deserves a better discussion than the current one.

2947:

Wrt Steve's outline, I certainly think it's an improvement, tho am not sure about the placing of "Chemical Philosophy". The "Chemical Revolution" is generally credited to Lavoisier at the end of the 18th C - it was pretty much a mess till then wasn't

265:“Nature, according to Aristotle, is an INNER principle of change and being at rest (Physics 2.1, 192b20-23). This means that when an entity moves or is at rest according to its nature reference to its nature may serve as an explanation of the event.” 1293:

of science, and that new perceptions on substance are second. A consequence of this is that after the 17th century no genuine revolutions took place, at least in natural sciences. Newton followed basically the same method als Einstein or Heisenberg.

2841:

inertia, to the mechanical philosophy, and led Newton to the question of what keeps the Moon in orbit around the Earth. Newton read both Galileo and Descartes carefully and one might ask whether Newton would have made his discoveries without them.—

1321:

The article says "... the 16th and 17th centuries..." and "Replacement of the Earth as center of the universe...". Pythagoras had already replaced the Earth as center much earlier. His followers did the same, all long before the 16th century A.D.

1027:] (1964), "La dynamique d’Ibn Bajja", in ''Mélanges Alexandre Koyré'', I, 442-468 , Paris (] Abel B. Franco (October 2003), "Avempace, Projectile Motion, and Impetus Theory", ''Journal of the History of Ideas'' '''64''' (4): 521-546 )</ref: --> 2062:

your edit stereotyped without explanation. If you add the original Italian source, if you add reference to that, good, no one stops you from improving Knowledge. Again, you don't quote the whole line, as if one does not know where the source is.

1124:

Astrology is still a profitable business along with allied industries; kids still avoid stepping on cracks in sidewalks. People play the lotteries using combinations of birthdays, years, etc. Many people expect that "bad news comes in threes."

2422:

IV.viii (214b29-215a24) is to demonstrate the falsity of the hypothesis that a void exists. One of Aristotle's arguments is that if a void existed (which it does not) motion would continue indefinitely (which is absurd). As I. B. Cohen said

2342:"Further, no one could say why a thing once set in motion should stop anywhere, for why should it stop here rather than here? So that a thing will either be at rest or must be moved ad infinitum, unless something more powerful get in its way." 2388:

The other issue concerns the use of primary sources. We have two primary sources here, Newton's claim that his law of inertia can be found in Aristotle and Aristotle's Physics itself. Here we come up against Knowledge's policy about using

1889: 391:

It is also notable that Heath does not claim "Newton's law of inertia had several similarities to Aristotle's theory of motion," as the article currently claims, but rather that Aristotle's principle of interminable locomotion in a void in

2464:" but this has nothing to do with the "contentious" claim about Kuhn... I'd welcome a contribution of those (other) secondary sources to help provide context for the Newton quote but even then I don't see why it would need to be removed.— 2931:

Wrt Galileo, I don't think one has to consider him as a martyr: he is of immense significance for many other reasons: his 2 New Sciences as well as the Dialogue (even tho apparently Newton didn't read the former); also his effect on the

2125:

Yes, this is what you tried to deal with the additional words, that is fine, but it is our consensus that the word is missing so we have a square bracket on it now. That's why your quotes are removed only after that is done. Let's see:

2608:

The recent move of the section on the significance of the scientific revolution from directly after the lead to the middle of the article brought me back to an old problem with the organization of this article. Long ago I proposed

2578:

So, please don't keep trying to change "it to the footnote or, if you prefer, delete it entirely" but do keep trying to see beyond the cruft of Logicus... from the perspective of an article about the period in history rather than a

1081:

was no reason the Church would not follow later by other people. This seemed to convince Clement to be cautious and not cover his long-time friend. As often, the way one say things speaks unfortunately louder than what one says :-(

1762:

We know little about Dark Matter/Energy, 80%+ of the universe. Dark matter wasn't supposed to clog together. A recent observation of two colliding galaxies showed that, indeed, dark matter does clog together. No one knows why, of

1173:

While the quote may (or may not) be accurate, it doesn't really seem appropriate, does it, to have a person of Bernal's standing, whom I never heard of before, making this statement, which, I admit, is a common misapprehension.

1868:

The quote, with context (quoted part in bold): "Of such are the mathematical sciences alone; that is, geometry and arithmetic, in which the Divine intellect indeed knows infinitely more propositions, since it knows all. But

3385:

We are told that the "barycenter" is inside the Sun. It is often outside the Sun. This claim was made to prove that "heliocentrism" was "demonstrated". Heliocentrism is correctly put in the list of obscelete theories. See

1463:

Aristarchus of Samos worked out from observation that the sun is vastly bigger than earth and therefore it's much more probable that earth orbits sun than vice versa. Right answer, right reason but quashed by Aristotle as

2518:

Well, I haven't looked it up in the article history (hopefully wasn't me) but I would have thought it was simply meant to be an example of the Renaissance respect for ancient learning introduced in the next paragraph. I

2435:

said, "Newton was prepared to find antecedents for the First Law of Motion not merely in the moderns, Galileo and Descartes, but in the ancients, Lucretius and Aristotle--an historical impulse which he later overcame."

903:

current This period saw a fundamental transformation in scientific ideas across physics, astronomy, and biology, in institutions supporting scientific investigation, and in the more widely held picture of the universe.

3184:

to me. The editor that insists on the sentence has a history of edit warring and agenda pushing, however, if other editors feel the sentence is appropriate and necessary for the section, I will welcome the consensus.

2979:

First, the notion that earlier (medieval) science slavishly followed authorities is a false stereotype; the Middle Ages saw an active transformation and challenging of received learning on both rational and empirical

2380:

First, it refers to Newton's "unpublished notes", which have since been published by Hall and Hall. Since they have now been published and are widely available they do not fall under Knowledge's policy against using

1060:"drift." Everything was in a "sphere" about the earth. Everyone thought they understood everything. When the solar centered people triumphed, it was an emotional and spiritual wrench for everyone, not just Catholics. 2799:

One may wish to add to the five major actors I've included here: Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton; proposals to add other significant persons (or topics) are obviously welcome as part of the discussion.

3251:

I agree with both comments above, however I do not understand why the special "nod" for Christian Metaphysics? Scholars have made non-fringe arguments that every religion and science has some intersecting point.

1862:) translation, and also found that the original Italian was available at Wikisource. As a help to other readers, I thought I'd include what I found in the footnote linked to the quotation. I added the following: 1188:

Like you, I disagree with Bernal, but he was a major figure in the historiography of science, and wrote a four volume survey, three volumes are still in print at MIT press. I think the best way to deal with his

1297:

Social sciences were much later to adopt similar methodologies, and some people argue that jurisprudence is still in the Middle Ages as regards its methodology (e.g. attaching substantial weight to the question

310:

The Stanford encyclopedia article refers to an entity's "motion according to its nature" -- natural motion. You're right that an external force is only required for violent motion. And yes I am claiming that

1224:

I think this quote should be removed, unless the correct reference can be provided. Currently the footnote points to Bernal's 1937 essay 'Dialectical Materialism and Modern Science', which is available online

1394:

The Pythagorean opinion did not play a significant role in astronomical or cosmological thought before the time of Copernicus. In this regard, the article's discussion accurately reflects current historical

3331:, the ruling ideology of the time. They did this by dethroning the earth (based on inconclusive evidence) and attaching "mechanical" and "mathematical" explanations for things (based largely on conjecture) 2259:

The citation as it stands is adequate, although the quotation from Newton cited there does not support the refutation of "Kuhn's thesis of a scientific revolution in dynamics". Further editing may be in

571:

first law of motion had been accepted at least since antiquity and by Aristotle refutes the traditional thesis of a scientific revolution in dynamics by Newton's because the law was denied by Aristotle.'

492:

Newton said its axiomatic three laws of motion were already accepted by mathematicians such as Huygens, Wallace, Wren and others, and also in memos in his draft preparations of the second edition of the

2973:

extend the concept of the Scientific Revolution as far chronologically as Butterfield had, but feel that the chemical philosophy, with its idea of active material bodies (corpuscles?) certainly belongs.

910:

Up to the 16th century, alchemy was considered serious science in Europe; for instance, Isaac Newton devoted considerably more of his writing to the study of alchemy (see Isaac Newton's occult studies)

1772:

Material on science should not be presented in a more arrogant format than any other material. It should just be reported like any other material with reliable sources. Not like a piece de resistance.

1584:

re Pascal and Leibniz looks dodgy to me. The Leibniz stuff seems out of place here. The Pascal stuff looks overblown - he must have had precusors? - but maybe we should be saying more here about that

3458:

specifies that "In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization." I will restore the archaic spelling once again and hope this doesn't lead to an edit war. --

2976:

I must disagree, however, with framing the article around the notion of a "change from an authoritarian view of science epitomized by Aristotle to an empirical… methodology" on three grounds.

788:

The existence of an intellectual Renaissance in the twelfth century in no way undermines the notion of a Scientific revolution. Every revolutionary change builds on historical antecedents. --

1755:

Sometimes two somethings which contradict each other, such as chemistry with orderly "shells" circling nuclei in tidy orbits, or quantum physics, where the order is in somewhat of a disarray.

2418:

does not maintain anything like the principal of inertia but requires the continual action of a motive power of some sort to keep a body in motion. The overall thrust of the discussion in

989:. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the page history, and found 69 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see 2263:@Student7: I note that your new citation does not appear correctly in the reference; could you put the full publication data author, title, publisher, date, etc. in appropriate form. 2617:

little more than lists of great (and not so great) achievements. I'd welcome suggestions; perhaps we could undertake a revision to bring this article up to good article standards. --

884:. He has his place between Copernic and Descartes. If you'r not agree, explain me why, please. This man gave us the symbolic notation of modern algebra. What should we do without it ? 851: 277:

dynamics was false because impetus is not a causal motive force in Galileo’s dynamics, in spite of the copious evidence to the contrary in his own English translations of Galileo’s

2021:

Why act like a newcomer, I have also seen your contribution log and you definitely know more about formatting/citation..etc. than I do, we can verify this on your contribution log.

1631:

and all that. The ancients had the archangels to conveniently shove the planets into retrograde occasionally. I would have to come up with "something else" if I were to argue it.

1913:

You didn't just notice the quotation from Galileo, you also noticed my contribution log and try your best on wikihounding, which I have warned you and documented clearly before:

2402:

primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Knowledge; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material

2007:

Here, on the talk page? Discussing an addition I proposed. The fact that something is unusual does not in itself mean it is wrong. I do not understand what you are asking here.

653:

analogy between Vesalius and Copernic but there is no comparison in scale. And the year 1543 is plainly a coincidence which does not need to be emaphasized. Copernic's book as

1619:

Since we have all been raised to think that the Scientific Revolution was wonderful, it is a bit hard sometimes to be objective about reporting it. Remember that most of this

738:

occurring in the Middle Ages, usually referring to either a European "Renaissance of the 12th century" or a medieval "Muslim scientific revolution", as a sign of continuity."

315:

is a reliable historian of science, having been Professor of that subject at the University of Toronto, one of the leading schools in that field and having been awarded the

1767:

The universe was supposed to be expanding, accelerating because of the Dark Matter/Energy. A recent (2013) discovery showed that it has slowed down 3% since the Big Bang.

2253: 2092:

Why is your addition worth-noting? Why is the quote so confusing that you need multiple version including Italian source to verify that the quote means what it means? --

2024:

Why is your addition worth-noting? Why is the quote so confusing that you need multiple version including Italian source to verify that the quote means what it means? --

982: 858: 694:

was skeptical of higher truths, lower truths, and every truth in between—including the empirical variety. Only recently it's come to mean one doesn't believe in ghosts.—

1529:

Right, Cleanthes not Aristotle (I don't know what being Catholic has to do with it). The point is that Aristarchus' heliocentrism was rational but was thought impious.

978: 2542:

On other matters, since you seem seriously interested in the Scientific Revolution, would you give some thought to the ideas for a major revision I raised below. --

2206:

encyclopedia, unless perhaps this view (that Kuhn stands undeniably refuted) has achieved consensus within the philosophy of science. 05:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

1855: 3051: 2667:

changes and major actors of the Scientific Revolution, the significance of those changes, and current interpretations of the concept of the Scientific Revolution.

2339:. I downloaded it to kindle, not being able to get the supposed html. I am not really sure what "page" I am on, so can't really quote that. The text I have reads: 2501:

quotation? What function does it serve in our discussion of the Scientific Revolution? It seems to give undue emphasis to a claim that historians have rejected.

1952:

However, your unusual habit on quoting the actual quote as is while the source (and page number..) is given is essentially stereotyped or just edit disrupt. --

2539:

contributes to the article. If you cannot give a good rationale for its presence, I will restore it to the footnote or, if you prefer, delete it entirely.

1021:{{citation|title=The Islamic intellectual tradition in Persia|author=] & Mehdi Amin Razavi|publisher=]|year=1996|isbn=0700703144|page=72}}</ref: --> 203:

Show that the citation is in error because the article in question does not claim that external force is a requirement for motion in Aristotle's theory, or

1344:

Phrases like "sparked ... Copernicus ..." also give the false impression that Copernicus's work was new. Galileo noted that his opinion was Pythagorean.

1029:

Abel B. Franco (October 2003), "Avempace, Projectile Motion, and Impetus Theory", ''Journal of the History of Ideas'' '''64''' (4):521-546 )</ref: -->

2346:

This seems to say essentially what Newton's notes supposedly say. Not sure, exactly how to cite a translated text. But it seems to be there in my copy.

123:

the heliocentric 'revolution'. And many of the so-called 'revolutionaries' cited in this article, such as Donne and Bacon, were in fact geocentrists.--

2438:

These (and other) secondary sources indicate that we should not take Newton's historical interpretations of his ancient predecessors at face value. --

192:

At present the claim is documented by a citation to an article by Stillman Drake, a noted historian of Galileo's thought, in a reliable journal, the

1121:

If you are suggesting that we have replaced "sunrise." "sunset", "moonrise", stars "come out", let me know the replacements. I would be interested.

1017:] (1987), "Ibn Sīnā and Buridan on the Motion of the Projectile", ''Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences'' '''500''' (1): 477–482</ref: --> 986: 2461:

These (and other) secondary sources indicate that we should not take Newton's historical interpretations of his ancient predecessors at face value.

1090:

refusing to talk - except to close friends - about what revolted him and Beauvoir when they visited USSR, in order not to desesperate the workers (

1229:). The word 'religion' doesn't even appear in this essay. It's certainly possible that the quote comes from one of Bernal's other works, like the 2952:

change from an authoritarian view of science epitomized by Aristotle to an empirical narrowly hypothesis-driven methodology which emerged in the

3416:

OK, the Barycenter isn't always in the body of the Sun. I've replaced the word "demonstrated" with "espoused" to avoid a fruitless edit war. --

2565: 1623:

be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And yes, in an argument between heliocentrism and geocentricism, I would rather argue the former. We have

169:"Although Newton's law of inertia had several similarities to Aristotle's theory of motion, the salient point is that it differed in key ways, 2613:

for this article. That proposal was soon derailed by a lengthy debate over whether there was such a thing as a scientific revolution at all.

1881: 3447: 1898:

Another editor objected to the addition, so I'm bringing it to the talk page to lay out my reasoning and see if we can come to a consensus.

356:

Aristotle's Physics in his learned article in that most learned journal, as this Knowledge article apparently claimed. We are all fallible !

2610: 2569: 2431:(1964): 141) "Most historians of science today would hesitate to attribute to Aristotle any true share in formulating the Law of Inertia." 2135: 2093: 2064: 2025: 1994: 1953: 831: 815: 64: 59: 2486:(1964): 141) "Most historians of science today would hesitate to attribute to Aristotle any true share in formulating the Law of Inertia." 2152:

you are using, but it's not one I've come across before. Nevertheless, it appears that we may now be in agreement, which I'm glad to see.

3345: 2213: 1888:

obiettiva, poiché arriva a comprenderne la necessità, sopra la quale non par che possa esser sicurezza maggiore." (from the copy at the

1372: 1351: 662: 3401: 2153: 2105: 2079: 2008: 1973: 1899: 1565: 1329: 1095: 751: 206:

Provide citations to a similar reliable source stating that an external force is not a requirement for motion in Aristotle's physics.

1871:

with regard to those few which the human intellect does understand, I believe its knowledge equals the Divine in objective certainty

1193:

is to present the views of other serious historians of science on the place of religion in the Scientific Reformation, the works of

124: 1267:

I see the passage and the reactions to it are still there. I think there's consensus to remove the paragraph, so I'm deleting it.

3042:

Repetition of word "extend" seems to me somewhat, well, repetitious. Also, it sounds a little like a tautology (which it is not).

2572:

to a range of historical figures including Pythagoras, Lucretius, and Aristotle. 'All those ancients knew the first law who...'".

1751:

Except for some math stuff, science cannot be "proven" beyond all doubt (even math has small inconsistencies). You have to assume

974: 766: 2878:

If we can't get a consensus on something as simple as an outline, I'd be reluctant to dive into undertaking such a project. --

3391: 3387: 3136:

Well there is a citation and the relevant part is online, so what's the problem? (It does seem to be part of the quotation.)

1720:

traditions which, for example, provided mathematically and physically significant explanations of the motions of the planets.

1589: 981:), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently 505:, Vol. 21, No. 2. (Dec., 1966), pp. 108-143 According to Newton himself and other historians of science Sir Thomas L. Heath, 2078:

without the additional context around the quote. I'm happy to remove it again if I misunderstood what your objection was.

217:

requires that you do not give undue weight to a position that appears rarely, if at all, in the historical literature. --

3394:. The Sun is not solid and has no center. It is not wise to pull chestnuts out of the fire for Galileo and Copernicus. 513:

first law of motion was the same as Aristotle's counterfactual principle of interminable locomotion in a void stated in

497:

he attributed its first law of motion and its law of gravity to a range of historical figures.A. R. Hall and M. B. Hall

1402:

To the extent this argument has any validity, it is adequately treated in the article's discussion of the changes as a

889: 616: 501:(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1962), pp.309-11; J. E. McGuire and P. M. Rattansi, "Newton and the 'Pipes of Pan'," 1699:

Hence the article's implication that it is an improvement over earlier science is, in some way, a violation of NPOV.

3358: 3070: 2584: 2524: 2490: 2465: 1499: 695: 47: 38: 17: 2915:

Your critical insights are useful, but do you have any positive suggestions as to how the article should develop?

2295:

I agree with the anonymous user who says that the claim of refutation is contentious and probably needs revision.

1118:

source can be found. For one thing, the stater is assuming that religion is the opposite of reason and knowledge.

396:

4.8.215a19-22 was an early anticipation of Newton's first law of motion, as indeed Newton himself also claimed. --

85:

scholars and formed a basis for later development, that connection should be made. As it is, it is just confusing.

3455: 3441: 1585: 1012:

I took this out as per mis-use of sources the citations do not verify the text and they are used out of context.

2523:

the quote down to break up that paragraph, so that the existing deflationary qualification follows immediately.—

2134:

If it still doesn't make clear what does "few" refers to, then the reader must be very stereotyped, isn't it. --

1152:

The text put in its place (the Hartstone Festshrift) should be properly cited with author, pages, and title per

3463: 3421: 3370: 3357:

Very few historians of the scientific revolution would support the position you are advancing. If you can find

3234: 2997: 2920: 2883: 2846: 2808: 2657: 2622: 2547: 2509: 2443: 2318: 2309:

I've just removed the speculative claims about "refuting Kuhn's thesis of a Scientific Revolution", drawing on

2300: 2277:

Thanks for adding the reference to Aristotle, however the book to which your citation links is not Aristotle's

2268: 2139: 2097: 2068: 2029: 1998: 1968: 1957: 1739: 1411: 1272: 1210: 1164: 835: 819: 719: 685: 670: 331: 222: 2353:! It seems "relatively" easy to find it in Aristotle. Not all that easy, or I would have done it earlier! :) 2252:

in the course of a content dispute by an editor with very unorthodox ideas in the history of science, who was

2217: 1376: 1355: 1055:

While it later became convenient for Protestants to say that the trial of Galileo was Catholic anti-science,

793: 3349: 2336: 2285:. The link goes to a page that reprints this section of the Knowledge article on the Scientific Revolution. 1569: 1333: 666: 3437: 3405: 3206: 3066: 2281:. Upon reading it a bit I found that the link is to a collection of Knowledge articles, published by the 2157: 2109: 2083: 2012: 1977: 1903: 1840: 1822: 1677: 1099: 885: 755: 2042:

Btw, you don't just quote half of my sentence, then say how you understand and all. This is what I said,

3257: 3190: 2937: 2349:

It would seem more of a problem, I would think, to state unequivocally that Newton realized this in his

1403: 789: 770: 128: 2822:

Descartes deserves to be in several places. But again, "physics"? Newton seems to stand supreme there.

517:

4.8.215a19--22 and was also endorsed by ancient Greek atomists and others. As Newton expressed himself:

3436:

I recently restored the archaic spelling "drayning" in a direct quotation from a 17th century source;

2182: 1920:, of course, there is lots of reverts, most(or all?) reverts anonymous editor. As for me, it includes 1858:

in the page, and was moved to verify it. In doing so, I ended up checking another earlier (now in the

1233:. I'll check that book tonight, but if the quote can't be found there, the citation should be removed. 3397: 3341: 3302: 3160: 3126: 2933: 2209: 1561: 1368: 1347: 1325: 1129:

we better off having replaced kindness? How about "climate change?" Is that a step towards "reason?"

881: 827: 811: 604: 3365:

of historians, you are free to present their positions in the article with appropriate citations. --

773:, the concept has had a strong intellectual focus. It very much concerns the activities within the 3459: 3417: 3366: 3230: 2993: 2916: 2879: 2842: 2804: 2653: 2618: 2543: 2505: 2439: 2314: 2296: 2264: 1735: 1716: 1407: 1268: 1206: 1160: 968: 691: 327: 316: 218: 1873:, for here it succeeds in understanding necessity, beyond which there can be no greater sureness." 1234: 573: 397: 289: 178: 3047: 2898: 2865: 2827: 2358: 2289: 2231: 1777: 1644: 1604: 1534: 1469: 1438: 1302:

made a certain statement rather than whether that statement is supported by facts and/or logic).

1179: 1138: 1065: 782: 715: 681: 635: 149: 105: 1599:

I just noticed your comment after commenting out one of the subsections. Maybe needs rewording.

1226: 608: 3467: 3425: 3409: 3374: 3306: 3261: 3238: 3210: 3202: 3194: 3164: 3145: 3141: 3130: 3096: 3090: 3075: 3016: 3012: 3001: 2965: 2961: 2924: 2902: 2887: 2869: 2850: 2831: 2812: 2661: 2642: 2638: 2626: 2589: 2551: 2529: 2513: 2495: 2470: 2447: 2390: 2382: 2362: 2322: 2304: 2272: 2235: 2194: 2190: 2161: 2143: 2113: 2087: 2072: 2033: 2016: 2002: 1981: 1961: 1907: 1844: 1836: 1826: 1818: 1800: 1796: 1781: 1743: 1681: 1673: 1648: 1608: 1593: 1538: 1504: 1473: 1442: 1415: 1380: 1359: 1337: 1311: 1307: 1276: 1258: 1254: 1242: 1238: 1214: 1183: 1168: 1142: 1103: 1069: 1045: 1002: 998: 953: 949: 929: 893: 870: 797: 774: 759: 700: 639: 620: 581: 577: 405: 401: 335: 297: 293: 226: 186: 182: 153: 132: 109: 89: 1659:

If you want a more NPOV then I suggest simply rearranging the wording of the introduction to:

3362: 3253: 3186: 3181: 1877: 1198: 1194: 1153: 1087: 1041: 214: 86: 2226:

equipment. The "revolution" continued on from where the ancients and Middle Ages left off.

3298: 3156: 3122: 2941: 2856: 1202: 1077: 867: 612: 2292:

and in this case the citation couldn't be any more circular. I'm deleting that citation.

1791:

computers with people I haven't met in person is a result of the scientific revolution.

1628: 1156:, so that the reader can examine the source to see if it supports the claims being made. 2681: 2580: 1850:

Addition of greater context and other translations of the Galileo quote in the footnote

1712: 1115: 964: 925: 654: 312: 3335:. The article completely ignores the real significance of the scientific revolution. 1945:

Now it is in addition to this one. So, it is not accusation, it is a scientific claim.

1022:

was the ] developed by the medieval scholars ], ] and ]. The concepts of ]<ref: -->

3043: 2894: 2861: 2823: 2575: 2354: 2227: 2120:"..and the part before because it makes explicit what "few" is intended to refer to." 1859: 1773: 1640: 1600: 1530: 1465: 1434: 1175: 1134: 1061: 711: 677: 631: 145: 101: 2475:

e/c I see for example you've added another secondary source here on the talk page: '

1694:

I'm not quite certain what Student7 is referring to when he says that "most of this

3137: 3086: 3008: 2957: 2648:(although Butterfield did write of a "delayed scientific revolution in chemistry"). 2634: 2564:

Renaissance respect for ancient learning, the article says: "Newton attributed his

2186: 1792: 1715:

policy is concerned with presenting accepted scholarly opinions. There is general

1303: 1250: 1190: 994: 945: 627: 2149: 1949:

proposition" as we can see from original source, that's good, you have sharp eyes.

196:. You may believe this is false but the threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is 1037: 197: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2458:

with the edit summary "remove contentious claim" except that you go on to say "

977:) is one of the main contributors to Knowledge (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 171:

such as an external force being a requirement for motion in Aristotle's theory.

2282: 2583:

and surely can work something out if that's still not sitting well with you.—

2129:""...with regard to those few which the human intellect does understand,..." 1365:

Some of the chemical elements were discovered well before the 16th century.

3333:

to establish materialist ideology and eliminate the entire concept of spirit

2049:

quoting the actual quote as is while the source (and page number..) is given

1769:

A lot of what science "knows", it sometimes doesn't know the following year.

1205:

come to mind. I don't have time at the moment to dig into this project. --

1159:

I am, once again, restoring the repeatedly deleted quotation from Bernal. --

921: 778: 2331:

translations of "Attic Greek" authors. The one I found is a translation of

1988:"I agree that adding the additional versions and extra context is unusual" 2337:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Aristotle

1639:

progress," will be time enough to decide whether it was "smart" or not.

1672:

This seems to me to then reflect all the facts in a more neutral tone.

1110:

Religion, superstition, and fear were replaced by reason and knowledge

2244:

The quotation is from Hall and Hall's published edition of Newton's

1133:

themselves and their relationship to the universe than we do today.

769:

misses the point that ever since it's formulation/identification by

2414:

The overall consensus of historians of science is that Aristotle's

2248:, which is not an unpublished source. The quotation, however, was 1498:

Aristotle wasn't Catholic and he died before Aristarchus was born.—

917: 2803:

Hope this outline can ultimately lead to an improved article. --

1759:

having said just the opposite yesterday before the new discovery.

2327:

People, better educated back in the good old days, constructed

3361:

who support this opinion, who I suspect will be shown to be a

3323:

The whole effect of the scientific revolution was to de facto

3065:: The topic of this article has nothing whatsoever to do with 1289:

It seems to me that the Englightment in partuclar changed the

25: 1023:

A. C. Crombie, ''Augustine to Galileo 2'', p. 67</ref: -->

913:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Alchemy#Modern_connections_to_alchemy

429:: In the light of this discussion, Logicus replaces the text: 2404:

requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation

1227:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bernal/works/1930s/dsams.htm

322:

I've restored the text adding the significant qualifier "

2256:

from Knowledge for a long pattern of disruptive editing.

3451: 3392:

Superseded scientific theories# Astronomy and cosmology

3225: 3220: 3152: 3117: 2984:

idealization of nature (as seen in Galileo and Kepler).

2956:

17th C and which spawned its own autonomous societies?

2535: 2520: 2455: 2310: 2249: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1582: 990: 912: 3388:

Superseded scientific theories#Astronomy and cosmology

1114:

This sentence is clearly pov on its surface even if a

852:

Knowledge talk:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1

661:. So I strongly suggest to delete the whole sentence. 200:. If you wish to delete this passage you may either: 2912:

historical literature on that topic we could draw on.

907:

I think what is missing here is alchemy - chemistry?

710:

skepticism was new idea by Sanches as far as I know.

288:

Thus I shall delete the whole misleading sentence.--

3037:

extending over an extended period changed to -: -->

2313:of the article. Hope this resolves any concerns. 1285:

Scientific revolution or methodological revolution?

1030:were also hypothesized by the medieval ], ] and ]. 2692:Transformational developments and their reception 246:American Journal of Physics is a reliable journal 2051:is essentially stereotyped or just edit disrupt." 509:(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949), pp. 115-6., his 166:In the article's current claim I have italicised 2480:Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 2425:Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 503:Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 2335:by by R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye of Adelaide. 1856:Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems 1086:Clement's attitude bears some similarity with 1016:The ancestor to Newton's laws of ]<ref: --> 899:Scientific Revolution & alchemy/chemistry? 630:thought "1277" was the birth year of Science. 808:"Bernel" seems to be a mistake for "Bernal". 499:Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton 8: 2454:understand why you removed the Newton quote 1627:the former because it is "easier" to argue. 2376:This discussion raises two related issues. 725:Inadequate (self-contradictory) formulation 3395: 3339: 940:whether it is susceptible to verification 2058:Your previous quote sounds like as if I 987:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 918:http://en.wikipedia.org/Jabir_ibn_Hayyan 824:Bernal's name is now spelled correctly. 734:theorists point to earlier intellectual 3175:Should article include tie to religion? 3058:Information revolution merge suggestion 3052:taking_place_over_an_extended_per": --> 1854:I noticed the quotation from Galileo's 1748:Yes, I agree with LookingGlass' change. 983:misused sources here over several years 2185:and is linked from the Dialogue page. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3087:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1940:, and the corresponding talk pages.." 7: 3432:Archaic spelling in direct quotation 3038:taking place over an extended period 2489:' but no one was making that claim.— 742:This seems pure nonsense : either a 3121:indented text is actually a quote. 850:Please see my "big question" here: 567:If correct, Newton's view that the 2504:Do you have a reason to keep it? — 2288:Two points, it's Knowledge policy 944:(as Popper taught us much later). 242:historian, nor that the allegedly 24: 3084:. Per above, not very related. -- 2311:this earlier (April 2008) version 847:in a sister article of this one. 3108: 2795:Significance of the "Revolution" 2148:I don't know what definition of 1993:Then what are you doing here. -- 29: 2689:Ancient and medieval background 1972:Knowledge is supposed to work. 767:Renaissance of the 12th century 647:Vesalius, what's he doing here? 488:'In the Axioms Scholium of his 3338:01:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 2765:The changing role of patronage 2290:not to cite Knowledge articles 1443:16:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 781:associated with the so-called 645: 1: 3468:20:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC) 3017:21:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC) 2627:15:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC) 2323:03:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC) 2305:02:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC) 2273:20:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC) 2246:Unpublished Scientific Papers 2236:17:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC) 2195:17:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC) 2162:23:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 2144:23:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 2114:22:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 2088:21:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 2073:20:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 2034:22:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 2017:21:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 2003:20:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 1982:20:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 1962:19:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 1908:19:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC) 1649:22:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC) 1609:15:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC) 1594:19:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC) 1416:20:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC) 1381:12:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC) 1360:12:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC) 1338:12:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC) 1259:14:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC) 1215:15:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 1184:13:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 1169:04:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC) 1143:23:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC) 1092:ne pas désespérer Billancourt 1070:20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC) 857:If you post something, do it 90:12:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC) 3375:03:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 3307:17:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC) 3262:20:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 3239:15:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 3211:05:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 3195:04:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 3002:20:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 2966:17:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 2940:as well as his influence on 2925:16:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 2903:01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 2888:19:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 2870:21:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 2851:03:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 2781:Historiographical Critiques 1916:"..let's see your beautiful 1277:16:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 1243:14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 930:10:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 871:00:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 215:Neutral Point of View policy 2832:17:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 2813:03:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 2784:Continuity with Middle Ages 2662:19:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC) 2643:15:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC) 2590:08:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 2552:03:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 2530:01:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 2514:14:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC) 2496:19:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 2471:19:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 2448:18:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 2363:16:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 1876:In the 1661 translation by 1154:Knowledge's Citation policy 640:01:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 194:American Journal of Physics 3483: 3106: 3097:10:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC) 3076:05:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 3053:16:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC) 2787:Renaissance or Revolution? 2768:Networks of communication 2703:De humani corporis fabrica 2684:(Introduction and Summary) 2201:questionable argumentation 1845:18:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 1827:18:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 1782:17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 1744:20:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC) 1682:08:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC) 1539:20:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC) 1505:22:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC) 1474:20:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC) 1231:Social Function of Science 979:198 in the number of edits 935:The essential question is 720:06:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 701:16:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 686:08:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 582:15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 406:18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 336:18:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 298:17:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 227:03:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 187:20:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 110:05:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 18:Talk:Scientific Revolution 3426:16:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC) 3410:10:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC) 3165:13:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC) 3146:19:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 3131:12:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 2712:The Mechanical Philosophy 2709:New Approaches to Nature 2556:Yikes, the impetus guy... 1191:significant minority view 1104:21:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 1046:04:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 1003:14:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 894:23:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 798:03:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 760:21:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 671:21:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 621:10:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC) 248:on the history of science 154:14:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 133:18:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 2726:Subsequent Developments 2534:No it wasn't you ;) who 1801:12:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC) 1312:11:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC) 954:12:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC) 843:Peer-review requested... 657:has famously proved was 507:Mathematics in Aristotle 319:for his work on Galileo. 213:In the latter case, the 3329:get rid of Christianity 2790:non-European influences 2715:The Chemical Philosophy 2047:"your unusual habit on 746:is advocated, or it is 427:Logicus Corrective Edit 198:Verifiability not Truth 3454:the modern spelling. 3067:Information revolution 2762:Institutional changes 1433:unconvincing) reason. 1404:scientific renaissance 1035: 1020:<ref name=Nasr: --> 659:"The Book Nobody Read" 3319:Anti-religious intent 2938:Accademia del Cimento 2478:As I. B. Cohen said ( 2383:Unpublished materials 2250:added to this article 1014: 771:Charles Homer Haskins 596:Scientific revolution 469:by the following text 42:of past discussions. 3219:Good question. The 2934:Accademia dei Lincei 2776:Scientific societies 2521:went ahead and moved 1586:William M. Connolley 991:this series of edits 765:Your comment on the 2855:I would think that 2570:first law of motion 2254:subsequently banned 1553:Very Poorly Written 95:Clearer ending date 80:Muslim Laundry List 3103:Quotes and italics 2729:The New Astronomy 1890:Italian Wikisource 1882:Archimedes Project 783:School of Chartres 3412: 3400:comment added by 3353: 3344:comment added by 2697:De revolutionibus 2351:unpublished notes 2212:comment added by 1564:comment added by 1371:comment added by 1350:comment added by 1328:comment added by 1026:and ]<ref: --> 1018:and ]<ref: --> 886:Jean de Parthenay 830:comment added by 814:comment added by 775:Cathedral schools 623: 607:comment added by 162:Proposed deletion 100:but not as much. 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3474: 3359:reliable sources 3112: 3111: 3093: 3073: 2743:The New Physics 2676:Proposed Outline 2587: 2527: 2493: 2488: 2487: 2468: 2463: 2462: 2221: 2150:wikt:stereotyped 1918:contribution log 1878:Thomas Salusbury 1713:Knowledge's NPOV 1573: 1502: 1383: 1362: 1340: 1199:Richard Westfall 1195:Robert K. Merton 1088:Jean-Paul Sartre 960:Misusing of refs 942:or falsification 839: 823: 698: 692:Greek skepticism 602: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3482: 3481: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3450:) subsequently 3438:Alejandrocaro35 3434: 3383: 3321: 3177: 3115: 3114: 3109: 3105: 3095: 3091: 3071: 3060: 3040: 2857:Johannes Kepler 2721:Mathematization 2678: 2606: 2604:Article outline 2585: 2525: 2491: 2477: 2476: 2466: 2460: 2459: 2406:. (my emphasis) 2391:primary sources 2207: 2203: 1852: 1667: 1617: 1579: 1559: 1555: 1500: 1366: 1345: 1323: 1319: 1287: 1203:Reijer Hooykaas 1112: 1078:Richard Feynman 1053: 1010: 962: 901: 878: 845: 825: 809: 806: 727: 696: 650: 598: 164: 97: 82: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3480: 3478: 3460:SteveMcCluskey 3433: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3418:SteveMcCluskey 3382: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3367:SteveMcCluskey 3325:get rid of God 3320: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3231:SteveMcCluskey 3221:original edits 3214: 3213: 3176: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3107: 3104: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3085: 3059: 3056: 3039: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 2994:SteveMcCluskey 2991: 2990: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2974: 2949: 2945: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2917:SteveMcCluskey 2913: 2909: 2880:SteveMcCluskey 2876: 2843:SteveMcCluskey 2835: 2834: 2820: 2805:SteveMcCluskey 2797: 2796: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2788: 2785: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2766: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2750: 2747: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2736: 2733: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2719: 2716: 2713: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2699: 2690: 2686: 2685: 2677: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2654:SteveMcCluskey 2649: 2619:SteveMcCluskey 2605: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2581:paradigm shift 2573: 2566:law of gravity 2561: 2560:law of motion. 2557: 2544:SteveMcCluskey 2540: 2506:SteveMcCluskey 2502: 2473: 2440:SteveMcCluskey 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2395: 2394: 2386: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2347: 2344: 2343: 2340: 2315:SteveMcCluskey 2297:SteveMcCluskey 2293: 2286: 2265:SteveMcCluskey 2261: 2257: 2239: 2238: 2202: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2136:14.198.220.253 2132: 2131: 2130: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2094:14.198.220.253 2065:14.198.220.253 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2026:14.198.220.253 2022: 1995:14.198.220.253 1991: 1990: 1989: 1954:14.198.220.253 1950: 1946: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1885: 1874: 1851: 1848: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1788: 1770: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1749: 1736:SteveMcCluskey 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1653: 1616: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1578: 1575: 1554: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1408:SteveMcCluskey 1400: 1399:anachronistic. 1396: 1395:understanding. 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1318: 1315: 1286: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1269:SteveMcCluskey 1262: 1261: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1207:SteveMcCluskey 1161:SteveMcCluskey 1157: 1150: 1111: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1083: 1082: 1052: 1049: 1009: 1006: 961: 958: 957: 956: 900: 897: 882:François Viète 877: 876:François Viète 874: 864:Thanks a lot! 844: 841: 832:81.138.253.153 816:86.139.211.191 805: 802: 801: 800: 786: 726: 723: 704: 703: 655:Owen Gingerich 649: 644: 643: 642: 597: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 328:SteveMcCluskey 320: 313:Stillman Drake 303: 302: 301: 300: 286: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 266: 258: 257: 256: 255: 230: 229: 219:SteveMcCluskey 210: 209: 208: 207: 204: 163: 160: 159: 158: 157: 156: 138: 137: 136: 135: 96: 93: 81: 78: 75: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3479: 3470: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3446: 3443: 3439: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3393: 3389: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3351: 3347: 3346:75.186.73.113 3343: 3336: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3318: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3227: 3222: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3183: 3174: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3119: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3088: 3083: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3074: 3068: 3064: 3057: 3055: 3054: 3049: 3045: 3036: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3005: 3004: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2992: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2977: 2975: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2950: 2946: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2858: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2801: 2794: 2789: 2786: 2783: 2782: 2780: 2775: 2770: 2769: 2767: 2764: 2763: 2761: 2755: 2751: 2748: 2745: 2744: 2742: 2737: 2734: 2731: 2730: 2728: 2727: 2725: 2720: 2717: 2714: 2711: 2710: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2698: 2695:Copernicus's 2694: 2693: 2691: 2688: 2687: 2683: 2680: 2679: 2675: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2650: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2614: 2612: 2611:a new outline 2603: 2591: 2588: 2582: 2577: 2574: 2571: 2567: 2562: 2558: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2528: 2522: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2494: 2485: 2481: 2474: 2472: 2469: 2457: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2436: 2432: 2430: 2426: 2421: 2417: 2405: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2393:, which says: 2392: 2387: 2384: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2345: 2341: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2291: 2287: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2219: 2215: 2214:75.187.208.13 2211: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2179: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2128: 2127: 2124: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2102: 2101: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2061: 2057: 2050: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2041: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1970: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1944: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1914: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1891: 1886: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1872: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1861: 1860:public domain 1857: 1849: 1847: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1789: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1768: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1754: 1750: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1718: 1714: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1697: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1651: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1637: 1632: 1630: 1629:Occam's Razor 1626: 1622: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1576: 1574: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1552: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1506: 1503: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1373:81.139.109.71 1370: 1364: 1363: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1352:81.139.109.71 1349: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1316: 1314: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1295: 1292: 1284: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1119: 1117: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1079: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1058: 1050: 1048: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1034: 1031: 1013: 1007: 1005: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 980: 976: 973: 970: 966: 959: 955: 951: 947: 943: 938: 934: 933: 932: 931: 927: 923: 919: 915: 914: 908: 905: 898: 896: 895: 891: 887: 883: 875: 873: 872: 869: 865: 862: 860: 855: 853: 848: 842: 840: 837: 833: 829: 821: 817: 813: 803: 799: 795: 791: 790:SteveMcslutty 787: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 763: 762: 761: 757: 753: 749: 745: 740: 739: 737: 733: 724: 722: 721: 717: 713: 709: 702: 699: 693: 690: 689: 688: 687: 683: 679: 673: 672: 668: 664: 663:91.92.179.172 660: 656: 648: 641: 637: 633: 629: 626: 625: 624: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 595: 583: 579: 575: 570: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 516: 512: 508: 504: 500: 496: 491: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 428: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 407: 403: 399: 395: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 354: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 318: 314: 309: 308: 307: 306: 305: 304: 299: 295: 291: 287: 284: 280: 275: 274: 273: 272: 264: 263: 262: 261: 260: 259: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 234: 233: 232: 231: 228: 224: 220: 216: 212: 211: 205: 202: 201: 199: 195: 191: 190: 189: 188: 184: 180: 174: 172: 167: 161: 155: 151: 147: 142: 141: 140: 139: 134: 130: 126: 121: 116: 115: 114: 113: 112: 111: 107: 103: 94: 92: 91: 88: 79: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3444: 3435: 3402:2.99.203.100 3396:— Preceding 3384: 3340:— Preceding 3337: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3322: 3203:MaynardClark 3178: 3116: 3081: 3072:Machine Elf 3062: 3061: 3041: 2988:methodology. 2953: 2802: 2798: 2753: 2702: 2696: 2615: 2607: 2586:Machine Elf 2526:Machine Elf 2492:Machine Elf 2483: 2479: 2467:Machine Elf 2437: 2433: 2428: 2424: 2419: 2415: 2413: 2403: 2375: 2350: 2332: 2328: 2278: 2245: 2208:— Preceding 2204: 2154:63.251.123.2 2106:63.251.123.2 2080:63.251.123.2 2059: 2048: 2009:63.251.123.2 1974:63.251.123.2 1900:63.251.123.2 1897: 1870: 1853: 1837:LookingGlass 1833: 1819:LookingGlass 1766: 1752: 1695: 1674:LookingGlass 1652: 1635: 1633: 1624: 1620: 1618: 1580: 1566:71.31.148.44 1560:— Preceding 1556: 1501:Machine Elf 1367:— Preceding 1346:— Preceding 1330:81.148.56.82 1324:— Preceding 1320: 1299: 1296: 1290: 1288: 1230: 1223: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1120: 1113: 1096:82.226.27.88 1091: 1056: 1054: 1036: 1033:Block quote 1032: 1028:<ref: --> 1024:<ref: --> 1015: 1011: 971: 963: 941: 936: 916: 909: 906: 902: 880:go and read 879: 866: 863: 856: 849: 846: 826:— Preceding 810:— Preceding 807: 752:82.226.27.88 747: 743: 741: 735: 731: 729: 728: 707: 705: 697:Machine Elf 674: 658: 651: 646: 628:Pierre Duhem 599: 568: 514: 510: 506: 502: 498: 494: 489: 426: 393: 352: 326:motion". -- 323: 317:Sarton Medal 282: 278: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 193: 175: 170: 168: 165: 119: 98: 83: 70: 43: 37: 3254:Xcuref1endx 3187:Xcuref1endx 2701:Vesalius's 2536:first added 1634:But nearly 1317:Anachronism 1291:methodology 736:revolutions 706:Right, but 603:—Preceding 569:Principia's 511:Principia's 125:80.6.94.131 87:Harold14370 36:This is an 3381:Barycenter 3299:Evensteven 3157:Mitch Ames 3123:Mitch Ames 3092:reply here 2718:Empiricism 2283:PediaPress 1753:something. 1464:heretical. 868:Cesar Tort 748:continuity 744:revolution 732:continuity 3226:edited it 3182:WP:POINTY 3118:This edit 2754:Principia 2752:Newton's 2749:Descartes 2329:their own 2183:available 1717:consensus 965:Jagged 85 779:Platonism 708:mitigated 495:Principia 490:Principia 120:Principia 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3452:restored 3448:contribs 3398:unsigned 3363:minority 3342:unsigned 3113:Resolved 3044:Gakrivas 2980:grounds. 2942:Gassendi 2895:Student7 2862:Student7 2824:Student7 2771:Printing 2568:and his 2355:Student7 2228:Student7 2210:unsigned 1774:Student7 1641:Student7 1625:selected 1615:POV tone 1601:Student7 1562:unsigned 1531:Pertin1x 1466:Pertin1x 1435:Student7 1369:unsigned 1348:unsigned 1326:unsigned 1176:Student7 1135:Student7 1062:Student7 1057:everyone 975:contribs 828:unsigned 812:unsigned 804:Spelling 777:and the 712:Pertin1x 678:Pertin1x 632:Student7 617:contribs 605:unsigned 353:Logicus: 283:Discorsi 244:reliable 240:reliable 236:Logicus: 146:G man yo 102:G man yo 3138:Chris55 3082:Oppose' 3009:Chris55 2958:Chris55 2746:Galileo 2738:Galileo 2635:Chris55 2420:Physics 2416:Physics 2333:Physics 2279:Physics 2187:Chris55 1969:already 1793:Rotundo 1763:course. 1304:Rbakels 1251:Chris55 1235:Ollieha 1116:WP:RELY 1051:Galileo 1008:Removed 995:Tobby72 946:Rbakels 574:Logicus 515:Physics 398:Logicus 394:Physics 324:violent 290:Logicus 279:Dialogo 252:Physics 179:Logicus 39:archive 3456:WP:MOS 3063:Oppose 2732:Kepler 2576:WP:BRD 2260:order. 1696:cannot 1621:cannot 1577:Dodgy? 1201:, and 1038:J8079s 730:"Some 3153:Fixed 2875:this. 2735:Brahe 2060:claim 1581:This 1406:. -- 609:Gon56 16:< 3464:talk 3442:talk 3422:talk 3406:talk 3371:talk 3350:talk 3327:and 3303:talk 3258:talk 3235:talk 3207:talk 3191:talk 3161:talk 3142:talk 3127:talk 3048:talk 3013:talk 2998:talk 2962:talk 2936:and 2921:talk 2899:talk 2884:talk 2866:talk 2847:talk 2828:talk 2819:IMO. 2809:talk 2682:Lead 2658:talk 2639:talk 2623:talk 2548:talk 2510:talk 2456:here 2444:talk 2359:talk 2319:talk 2301:talk 2269:talk 2232:talk 2218:talk 2191:talk 2158:talk 2140:talk 2110:talk 2098:talk 2084:talk 2069:talk 2030:talk 2013:talk 1999:talk 1978:talk 1958:talk 1904:talk 1841:talk 1823:talk 1797:talk 1778:talk 1740:talk 1678:talk 1645:talk 1605:talk 1590:talk 1570:talk 1535:talk 1470:talk 1439:talk 1412:talk 1377:talk 1356:talk 1334:talk 1308:talk 1273:talk 1255:talk 1239:talk 1211:talk 1180:talk 1165:talk 1139:talk 1100:talk 1066:talk 1042:talk 999:talk 969:talk 950:talk 926:talk 922:DuKu 890:talk 859:here 836:talk 820:talk 794:talk 756:talk 716:talk 682:talk 667:talk 636:talk 613:talk 578:talk 402:talk 332:talk 294:talk 281:and 223:talk 183:talk 150:talk 129:talk 106:talk 2948:it? 1636:all 1300:who 1094:). 993:). 937:not 3466:) 3424:) 3408:) 3373:) 3352:) 3305:) 3260:) 3237:) 3229:-- 3209:) 3193:) 3163:) 3155:. 3144:) 3129:) 3069:.— 3050:) 3015:) 3000:) 2964:) 2954:16 2923:) 2901:) 2886:) 2868:) 2849:) 2830:) 2811:) 2660:) 2641:) 2625:) 2550:) 2512:) 2484:19 2482:, 2446:) 2429:19 2427:, 2361:) 2321:) 2303:) 2271:) 2234:) 2220:) 2193:) 2160:) 2142:) 2112:) 2100:) 2086:) 2071:) 2063:-- 2032:) 2015:) 2001:) 1980:) 1960:) 1936:, 1932:, 1928:, 1924:, 1906:) 1843:) 1825:) 1799:) 1780:) 1742:) 1680:) 1647:) 1607:) 1592:) 1572:) 1537:) 1472:) 1441:) 1414:) 1379:) 1358:) 1336:) 1310:) 1275:) 1257:) 1241:) 1213:) 1197:, 1182:) 1167:) 1141:) 1102:) 1068:) 1044:) 1001:) 952:) 928:) 920:-- 892:) 861:. 854:. 838:) 822:) 796:) 758:) 718:) 684:) 669:) 638:) 619:) 615:• 580:) 572:-- 404:) 334:) 296:) 285:.) 225:) 185:) 173:" 152:) 131:) 108:) 3462:( 3445:· 3440:( 3420:( 3404:( 3369:( 3348:( 3301:( 3256:( 3252:- 3233:( 3205:( 3189:( 3185:- 3159:( 3140:( 3125:( 3089:| 3046:( 3011:( 2996:( 2960:( 2944:. 2919:( 2897:( 2882:( 2864:( 2845:( 2826:( 2807:( 2656:( 2652:— 2637:( 2621:( 2546:( 2508:( 2442:( 2423:( 2385:. 2357:( 2317:( 2299:( 2267:( 2230:( 2216:( 2189:( 2156:( 2138:( 2108:( 2096:( 2082:( 2067:( 2028:( 2011:( 1997:( 1976:( 1956:( 1938:5 1934:4 1930:3 1926:2 1922:1 1902:( 1892:) 1884:) 1839:( 1821:( 1795:( 1776:( 1738:( 1676:( 1643:( 1603:( 1588:( 1568:( 1533:( 1468:( 1437:( 1410:( 1375:( 1354:( 1332:( 1306:( 1271:( 1253:( 1237:( 1225:( 1209:( 1178:( 1163:( 1137:( 1098:( 1064:( 1040:( 997:( 972:· 967:( 948:( 924:( 888:( 834:( 818:( 792:( 785:. 754:( 714:( 680:( 665:( 634:( 611:( 576:( 400:( 330:( 292:( 254:: 221:( 181:( 148:( 127:( 104:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index