17 Revolution

Scientific The

n 1609 Galileo Galilei, an Italian mathema-

tician at the University of Padua, directed a new scien-
tific instrument, the telescope, toward the heavens.
Having heard that a Dutch artisan had put together
two lenses in a way that magnified distant objects,
Galileo built his own such device. Anyone who has looked
through a telescope can appreciate his excitement. Objects
that appeared one way to the naked eye looked entirely dif-
ferent when magnified by his new “spyglass,” as he called it.
The surface of the moon, long believed to be smooth, uni-
form, and perfectly spherical, now appeared full of moun-
tains and craters. Galileo’s spyglass showed that the sun,
too, was imperfect, marred by spots that appeared to move
across its surface. Such sights challenged traditional sci-
ence, which assumed that “the heavens,” the throne of God,
were perfect and thus never changed. Traditional science
was shaken even further when Galileo showed that Venus,
viewed over many months, appeared to change its shape,
much as the moon did in its phases. This discovery provided
evidence for the relatively new theory that the planets, in-
cluding Earth, revolved around the sun rather than the sun
and the planets around the Earth.
Galileo shared the discoveries he made not only with fel-
low scientists, but also with other educated members of so-
ciety. He also staged a number of public demonstrations of
his new astronomical instrument, the first of which took place
on top of one of the city gates of Rome in 1611. To convince
those who doubted the reality of the images they saw, Galileo

THE TELESCOPE The telescope was

L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S the most important of the new scientific
instruments that facilitated discovery. This
engraving depicts an astronomer using the
telescope in 1647.
17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5

What What Why did the How did the How did the
were the methods did Scientific Scientific Scientific
achievements scientists use Revolution Revolution Revolution
and during this take place influence change the
discoveries of period to in western philosophical way in which
the Scientific investigate Europe at and religious seventeenth-
Revolution? nature, and this time? thought in the and eighteenth-
how did they seventeenth century
think nature and early Europeans
operated? eighteenth thought of the
centuries? place of human
Listen to Chapter 17 on MyHistoryLab beings in nature?
17.1 Watch the Video Series on MyHistoryLab
Learn about some key topics related to this chapter with the MyHistoryLab Video Series:
17.2 Key Topics in Western Civilization

turned the telescope toward familiar landmarks in the city. Interest in the new scientific instrument
17.3 ran so high that a number of amateur astronomers acquired telescopes of their own.
Galileo’s discoveries were part of what historians call the Scientific Revolution. This development
changed the way Europeans viewed the natural world, the supernatural realm, and themselves. It led
17.4 to controversies in religion, philosophy, and politics and changes in military technology, navigation,
and business. It also set the West apart from the civilizations of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa and
provided a basis for claims of Western superiority over the people in those lands.
17.5 The scientific culture that emerged in the West by the end of the seventeenth century was the
product of a series of cultural encounters. It resulted from a complex interaction among scholars
proposing different ideas of how nature operated. Some of these ideas originated in Greek philoso-
phy. Others came from Christian sources. Still other ideas came from a tradition of late medieval
science that had been influenced by the scholarship of the Islamic Middle East.
The main question this chapter seeks to answer is this:

How did European scientists in the sixteenth

and seventeenth centuries change the way in
which people in the West viewed the natural world?

The Discoveries and Achievements

of the Scientific Revolution
17.1 What were the achievements and discoveries of the Scientific Revolution?

nlike political revolutions, such as the English Revolution of the 1640s discussed in
the last chapter, the Scientific Revolution developed gradually over a long period
of time. It began in the mid-sixteenth century and continued into the eighteenth
century. Even though it took a relatively long time to unfold, it was revolutionary
in the sense that it transformed human thought, just as political revolutions have funda-
mentally changed systems of government. The most important changes in seventeenth-
century science took place in astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology.

Astronomy: A New Model of the Universe

The most significant change in astronomy was the acceptance of the view that the sun,
not the Earth, was the center of the universe. Until the mid-sixteenth century, most
natural philosophers—as scientists were known at the time—accepted the views of the
ancient Greek astronomer Claudius Ptolemy (100–170 c.e.). Ptolemy’s observations
and calculations supported the cosmology of the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322
b.c.e.). According to Ptolemy and Aristotle, the center of the universe was a station-
ary Earth, around which the moon, the sun, and the other planets revolved in circular
orbits. Beyond the planets a large sphere carried the stars, which stood in a fixed rela-
tionship to each other, around the Earth from east to west once every 24 hours, thus
accounting for the rising and setting of the stars. Each of the four known elements—
earth, water, air, and fire—had a natural place within this universe, with the heavy
2 elements, earth and water, being pulled down toward the center of the Earth and the
light ones, air and fire, hovering above it. All heavenly bodies, including the sun and the
planets, were composed of a fifth element, called ether, which unlike matter on Earth 17.1
was thought to be eternal and could not be altered, corrupted, or destroyed.
This traditional view of the cosmos had much to recommend it, and some edu-
cated people continued to accept it well into the eighteenth century. The Bible, which 17.2
in a few passages referred to the motion of the sun, reinforced the authority of Aristotle.
And human observation seemed to confirm the motion of the sun. We do, after all, see
the sun “rise” and “set” every day, so the idea that the Earth rotates at high speed and
17.3
revolves around the sun contradicts the experience of our senses. Nevertheless, the
Earth-centered model of the universe failed to explain many patterns that astronomers
observed in the sky, most notably the paths followed by planets. Whenever ancient or
17.4
medieval astronomers confronted a new problem as a result of their observations, they
tried to accommodate the results to the Ptolemaic model. By the sixteenth century this
model had been modified or adjusted so many times that it had gradually become a
confused collection of planets and stars following different motions. 17.5
Faced with this situation, a Polish cleric, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), looked for
a simpler and more plausible model of the universe. In On the Revolutions of the Heavenly
Spheres, which was published shortly after his death, Copernicus proposed that the center
of the universe was not the Earth but the sun. The book was widely circulated, but it did
not win much support for the sun-centered theory of the universe. Only the most learned
astronomers could understand Copernicus’s mathematical arguments, and even they were
not prepared to adopt his central thesis. In the late sixteenth century the great Danish as- Read the Document
tronomer Tycho Brahe (1546–1601) accepted the argument of Copernicus that the planets On the Revolution of the Heavenly
revolved around the sun but still insisted that the sun revolved around the Earth. Spheres (1500s) Nicolaus Copernicus
Significant support for the Copernican model of the universe among scientists
began to materialize only in the seventeenth century. In 1609 a German astronomer,
Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), using data that Brahe had collected, confirmed the cen-
tral position of the sun in the universe. In New Astronomy (1609) Kepler also dem-
onstrated that the planets, including the Earth, followed elliptical rather than circular

TWO VIEWS OF THE PTOLEMAIC OR PRECOPERNICAN UNIVERSE (Left) In this sixteenth-century engrav-
ing the Earth lies at the center of the universe and the elements of water, air, and fire are arranged in ascending order
above the Earth. The orbit that is shaded in black is the firmament or stellar sphere. The presence of Christ and the
saints at the top reflects the view that Heaven lay beyond the stellar sphere. (Right) A medieval king representing
Atlas holds a Ptolemaic cosmos. The Ptolemaic universe is often referred to as a two-sphere universe: The inner sphere
of the Earth lies at the center and the outer sphere encompassing the entire universe rotates around the Earth. 3
17.1

17.2

17.3

17.4

17.5

View the Closer Look TWO EARLY MODERN VIEWS OF THE SUNCENTERED UNIVERSE (Left) The depiction by Copernicus. Note
that all the orbits are circular, rather than elliptical, as Kepler was to show they were. The outermost sphere is that of
The Copernican Universe the fixed stars. (Right) A late-seventeenth-century depiction of the cosmos by Andreas Cellarius in which the planets
follow elliptical orbits. It illustrates four different positions of the Earth as it orbits the sun.

orbits and that physical laws governed their movements. Not many people read Kepler’s
book, however, and his achievement was not fully appreciated until many decades later.
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) was far more successful in gaining support for the
sun-centered model of the universe. Galileo had the literary skill, which Kepler lacked,
of being able to write for a broad audience. Using the evidence gained from his obser-
vations with the telescope, and presenting his views in the form of a dialogue between
the advocates of the two competing worldviews, Galileo demonstrated the plausibility
and superiority of Copernicus’s theory.
The publication of Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems—Ptol-
emaic and Copernican in 1632 won many converts to the sun-centered theory of the uni-
verse, but it lost him the support of Pope Urban VIII, who had been one of his patrons.
The character in Dialogue who defends the Ptolemaic system is named Simplicio (that is, a
simple—or stupid—person). Urban wrongly concluded that Galileo was mocking him. In
1633 Galileo was tried before the Roman Inquisition, an ecclesiastical court whose purpose
was to maintain theological orthodoxy. The charge against him was that he had challenged
the authority of Scripture and was therefore guilty of heresy, the denial of the theological
truths of the Roman Catholic Church. (See Justice in History in this chapter.)
As a result of this trial, Galileo was forced to abandon his support for the Copernican
model of the universe, and Dialogue was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, a list
compiled by the papacy of all printed works containing heretical ideas. Despite this set-
back, by 1700 Copernicanism commanded widespread support among scientists and the
educated public. Dialogue, however, was not removed from the Index until 1822.

Physics: The Laws of Motion and Gravitation

Galileo made his most significant contributions to the Scientific Revolution in physics.
In the seventeenth century the main branches of physics were mechanics (the study
of motion and its causes) and optics (the study of light). Galileo formulated a set of
laws governing the motion of material objects that challenged the accepted theories of
Aristotle regarding motion and laid the foundation of modern physics.
According to Aristotle, whose views dominated science in the late Middle Ages,
the motion of every object—except the natural motion of falling toward the center of
4 the Earth—required another object to move it. If the mover stopped, the object fell to the
ground or simply stopped moving. But this theory could not explain why a projectile,
such as a discus or a spear, continued to move after a person threw it. Galileo’s answer to 17.1
that question was a theory of inertia, which became the basis of a new theory of motion.
According to Galileo, an object continues to move or lie at rest until something external to it
intervenes to change its motion. Thus, motion is neither a quality inherent in an object nor 17.2
a force that it acquires from another object. It is simply a state in which the object finds itself.
Galileo also discovered that the motion of an object occurs only in relation to things
that do not move. A ship moves through the water, for example, but the goods that the
17.3
ship carries do not move in relationship to the moving ship. This insight explained to
the critics of Copernicus how the Earth can move even though we do not experience its
motion. Galileo’s most significant contribution to mechanics was his formulation of a
17.4
mathematical law of motion that explained how the speed and acceleration of a falling
object are determined by the distance it travels during equal intervals of time.
The greatest achievements of the Scientific Revolution in physics belong to English
scientist Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727). His research changed the way future genera- 17.5
tions viewed the world. As a boy Newton felt out of place in his small village, where he
worked on his mother’s farm and attended school. Fascinated by mechanical devices,

SIR ISAAC NEWTON This portrait was painted by Sir Godfrey Kneller in 1689, two years after the publication of
Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. 5
17.1 CHRONOLOGY: DISCOVERIES OF THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION

17.2 1543
Copernicus publishes On the 1543
Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres.

17.3 1609
1609 Johannes Kepler publishes New
Astronomy.
17.4
1628
William Harvey publishes On the 1628
Motion of the Heart and Blood
17.5 in Animals.

1632
1632 Galileo publishes Dialogue Concern-
ing the Two Chief World Systems.

1638
Galileo publishes Discourses on the Two 1638
New Sciences of Motion and Mechanics.

1659
1659 Robert Boyle invents the air pump
and conducts experiments on the
elasticity and compressibility of air.

1687
Newton publishes Mathematical 1687
Principles of Natural Philosophy.

universal law of gravitation A he spent much of his time building wooden models of windmills and other machines.
law of nature established by Isaac When playing with his friends he always found ways to exercise his mind, calculating,
Newton in 1687 holding that any for example, how he could use the wind to win jumping contests. It became obvious to
two bodies attract each other with
a force that is directly proportional
all who knew him that Newton belonged at a university. In 1661 he entered Cambridge
to the product of their masses University, where, at age 27, he became a chaired professor of mathematics.
and indirectly proportional to the Newton formulated a set of mathematical laws to explain the operation of the
square of the distance between entire physical world. In 1687 he published his theories in Mathematical Principles of
them. The law was presented in Natural Philosophy. The centerpiece of this monumental work was the universal law
mathematical terms.
of gravitation, which demonstrated that the same force holding an object to the Earth
also holds the planets in their orbits. This law represented a synthesis of the work of
Read the Document other scientists, including Kepler on planetary motion and Galileo on inertia. Newton
Isaac Newton, from Opticks paid tribute to the work of these men when he said, “If I have seen farther, it is by
standing on the shoulders of giants.” But Newton went further than any of them by
establishing the existence of a single gravitational force and by giving it precise math-
alchemy The practice, rooted ematical expression. His book revealed the unity and order of the entire physical world
in a philosophical tradition, of and thus offered a scientific model to replace that of Aristotle.
attempting to turn base metals into
precious ones. It also involved the
identification of natural substances Chemistry: Discovering the Elements of Nature
for medical purposes. Alchemy was
influential in the development of The science today called chemistry originated in the study and practice of alchemy,
chemistry and medicine in the six- the art of attempting to turn base metals into gold or silver and to identify natural
teenth and seventeenth centuries. substances that could be used in the practice of medicine. Alchemy has often been
6
ridiculed as a form of magic that is the antithesis of modern science, but alchemists
performed experiments that contributed to the growth of the empirical study of nature. 17.1
The Swiss physician and alchemist Paracelsus (1493–1541), who rejected the tradi-
tional method of curing patients by altering the balance of fluids (such as blood and
bile) in the body, occupies a significant place in the early history of chemistry. In his 17.2
effort to find what he called a panacea, or a remedy for all diseases, Paracelsus treated
his patients with chemicals, such as mercury and sulfur. In this way chemistry became
an accepted part of medical science.
17.3
During the seventeenth century chemistry gained further recognition as a le-
gitimate field of scientific research, largely as the result of the work of Robert Boyle
(1627–1691). Boyle, who also had an interest in alchemy, destroyed the prevailing
17.4
idea that all basic constituents of matter share the same structure. He contended that
the arrangement of their components, which he identified as corpuscles or atoms,
determined their characteristics. He also conducted experiments on the volume,
17.5

PORTRAIT OF ROBERT BOYLE WITH HIS AIR PUMP IN THE BACKGROUND 1664 Boyle’s pump became
the center of a series of experiments carried on at the Royal Society in London.
7
 pressure, and density of gas and the elasticity of air. Boyle’s most famous experi-
17.1 ments, undertaken with an air pump, proved the existence of a vacuum. Largely as a
result of Boyle’s discoveries, chemists won acceptance as members of the company
of scientists.
17.2
Biology: The Circulation of the Blood
The English physician William Harvey (1578–1657) made one of the great medical
17.3
discoveries of the seventeenth century by demonstrating in 1628 that blood circulates
throughout the human body. Traditional science had maintained that blood originated
in the liver and then flowed outward through the veins. A certain amount of blood
17.4
flowed from the liver into the heart, where it passed from one ventricle to the other and
then traveled through the arteries to different parts of the body. During its journey this
arterial blood was enriched by a special pneuma or “vital spirit” that was necessary to
17.5 sustain life. When this enriched blood reached the brain, it became the body’s “psychic
spirits,” which influenced human behavior.
Through experiments on human cadavers and live animals in which he weighed
the blood that the heart pumped every hour, Harvey demonstrated that rather than
sucking in blood, the heart pumped it through the arteries by means of contraction
and constriction. The only gap in his theory was the question of how blood went
from the ends of the arteries to the ends of the veins. This question was answered in
Read the Document 1661, when scientists, using a new instrument known as a microscope, could see the
William Harvey, Address to the
capillaries connecting the veins and arteries. Harvey, however, had set the standard
Royal College of Physicians, 1628 for future biological research.

The Search for Scientific Knowledge

17.2 What methods did scientists use during this period to investigate nature, and how did
they think nature operated?

he natural philosophers who made these scientific discoveries worked in different

disciplines, and each followed his own procedures for discovering scientific truth.
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there was no “scientific method.” Many nat-
ural philosophers, however, shared similar views about how nature operated and the
means by which humans could acquire knowledge of it. In searching for scientific knowl-
edge, these scientists observed and experimented, used deductive reasoning, expressed
their theories in mathematical terms, and argued that nature operated like a machine. These
features of scientific research ultimately defined a distinctly Western approach to solving
scientific problems.

Observation and Experimentation

The most prominent feature of scientific research in sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century Europe was the observation of nature, combined with the testing of hypoth-
induction The mental process by eses by rigorous experimentation. This was primarily a process of induction, in which
which theories are established only theories emerged only after the accumulation and analysis of data. It assumed a willing-
after the systematic accumulation ness to abandon preconceived ideas and base scientific conclusions on experience and
of large amounts of data.
observation. This approach is also described as empirical: empiricism demands that all
empiricism The practice of testing
scientific theories be tested by experiments based on observation of the natural world.
scientific theories by observation
and experiment. In New Organon (1620), the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561–1626)
promoted this empirical approach to scientific research. Bacon complained that all
previous scientific endeavors, especially those of ancient Greek philosophers, relied

8
 17.1

17.2

17.3

17.4

17.5

DISSECTION The Dutch surgeon Nicolaes Tulp giving an anatomy lesson in 1632. As medical science developed in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the dissection of human corpses became a standard practice in European
universities and medical schools. Knowledge of the structure and composition of the human body, which was central
to the advancement of physiology, could best be acquired by cutting open a corpse to reveal the organs, muscles,
and bones of human beings. The practice reflected the emphasis scientists placed on observation and experimenta-
tion in conducting scientific research.

too little on experimentation. In contrast, his approach involved the thorough and
systematic investigation of nature, a process that Bacon, who was a lawyer and judge,
compared to the interrogation of a person suspected of committing a crime. For Read the Document
Bacon, scientific experimentation was “putting nature to the question,” a phrase that Francis Bacon, from Novum
referred to questioning a prisoner under torture to determine the facts of a case. Organum

Deductive Reasoning
The second feature of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century scientific research was the
use of deductive reasoning to establish basic scientific truths or principles. From these deductive reasoning The logical
principles other ideas or laws could be deduced logically. Just as induction is linked to process by which ideas and laws
empiricism, so deduction is connected to rationalism. Unlike empiricism—the idea are derived from basic truths or
principles.
that we know truth through what the senses can experience—rationalism insists that
rationalism The theory that the
the mind contains rational categories independent of sensory observation.
mind contains rational categories
Unlike the inductive experimental approach, which found its most enthusiastic independent of sensory observa-
practitioners in England, the deductive approach had its most zealous advocates on tion; more generally that reason is
the European continent. The French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes the primary source of truth.
(1596–1650) became the foremost champion of this methodology. In his Discourse on
the Method (1637), Descartes recommended that to solve any intellectual problem, a
person should first establish fundamental principles or truths and then proceed from
those ideas to specific conclusions.
Mathematics, in which one also moves logically from certain premises to conclu-
sions by means of equations, provided the model for deductive reasoning. Although
rational deduction proved to be an essential feature of scientific methodology, the
limitations of an exclusively deductive approach became apparent when Descartes and

9
 his followers deduced a theory of gravitation from the principle that objects could
17.1 influence each other only if they actually touched. This theory, as well as the principle
upon which it was based, lacked an empirical foundation and eventually had to be
abandoned.
17.2
Mathematics and Nature
The third feature of scientific research in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was
17.3
the application of mathematics to the study of the physical world. Scientists working
in both the inductive and the deductive traditions used mathematics. Descartes shared
with Galileo the conviction that nature had a geometrical structure and could there-
17.4
fore be understood in mathematical terms. The physical dimensions of matter, which
Descartes claimed were its only properties, could of course be expressed mathemati-
cally. Galileo claimed that mathematics was the language in which philosophy was
17.5 written in “the book of the universe.”
Isaac Newton’s work provided the best illustration of the application of mathemat-
ics to scientific problems. Newton used observation and experimentation to confirm
his theory of universal gravitation, but he wrote his Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy in the language of mathematics. His approach to scientific problems, which
became a model for future research, used examples derived from experiments and
deductive, mathematical reasoning to discover the laws of nature.

The Mechanical Philosophy

Much of seventeenth-century scientific experimentation and deduction assumed
that the natural world operated as if it were a machine made by a human being. This
mechanical philosophy The mechanical philosophy of nature appeared most clearly in the work of Descartes. Me-
seventeenth-century philosophy dieval philosophers had argued that natural bodies had an innate tendency to change,
of nature, championed by René whereas artificial objects, that is, those constructed by humans, did not. Descartes, as
Descartes, holding that nature
well as Kepler, Galileo, and Bacon, denied that assumption. Mechanists argued that
operated in a mechanical way, just
like a machine made by a human nature operated in a mechanical way, just like a piece of machinery. The only difference
being. was that the operating structures of natural mechanisms could not be observed as read-
ily as the structures of a machine.
Mechanists perceived the human body itself as a machine. Harvey, for example,
described the heart as “a piece of machinery in which, though one wheel gives motion
to another, yet all the wheels seem to move simultaneously.” The only difference be-
tween the body and other machines was that the mind could move the body, although
how it did so was controversial. According to Descartes, the mind was completely dif-
ferent from the body and the rest of the material world. Unlike the body, the mind
was an immaterial substance that could not be extended in space, divided, or mea-
sured mathematically, the way one could record the dimensions of the body. Because
Descartes made this sharp distinction between the mind and the body, we describe his
dualistic A term used to describe philosophy as dualistic.
a philosophy or a religion in which Descartes and other mechanists argued that matter was completely inert or
a rigid distinction is made between dead. It did not possess a soul or any innate purpose. Its only property was “exten-
body and mind, good and evil, or
the material and the immaterial
sion,” or the physical dimensions of length, width, and depth. Without a spirit or
world. any other internal force directing its action, matter simply responded to the power of
the other bodies with which it came in contact. According to Descartes, all physical
phenomena could be explained by reference to the dimensions and the movement
of particles of matter. He once claimed, “Give me extension and motion and I will
construct the universe.”1
The view of nature as a machine implied that it operated in a regular, predict-
able way in accordance with unchanging laws of nature. Scientists could use reason
to discover what those laws were and thus learn how nature performed under any
10
circumstances. The scientific investigations of Galileo and Kepler were based on those
assumptions, and Descartes made them explicit. The immutability of the laws of na- 17.1
ture implied that the entire universe was uniform in structure, an assumption that
underlay Newton’s formulation of the laws of motion and universal gravitation.
17.2

The Causes of the Scientific Revolution 17.3

17.3 Why did the Scientific Revolution take place in western Europe at this time?
17.4
hy did the Scientific Revolution take place at this particular time, and why
did it originate in western European countries? There is no simple answer
to this question. We can, however, identify developments that inspired these 17.5
scientific discoveries. Some of these developments arose out of earlier inves-
tigations conducted by natural philosophers in the late Middle Ages, the Renaissance,
and the sixteenth century. Others emerged from the religious, political, social, and eco-
nomic life of early modern Europe.

Developments Within Science

The three internal causes of the Scientific Revolution were the research into motion con-
ducted by natural philosophers in the fourteenth century, the scientific investigations
conducted by Renaissance humanists, and the collapse of the dominant conceptual frame-
works, or paradigms, that had governed scientific inquiry and research for centuries.

LATE MEDIEVAL SCIENCE Modern science can trace some of its origins to the four-
teenth century, when the first significant modifications of Aristotle’s scientific theories
began to emerge. The most significant of these refinements was the theory of impetus.
Aristotle had argued that an object would stop as soon as it lost contact with the object
that moved it. Late medieval scientists claimed that objects in motion acquire a force
that stays with them after they lose contact with the mover. This theory of impetus ques-
tioned Aristotle’s authority, and it influenced some of Galileo’s early thought on motion.
Natural philosophers of the fourteenth century also began to recommend direct,
empirical observation in place of the traditional tendency to accept preconceived no-
tions regarding the operation of nature. This approach to answering scientific ques-
tions did not result in the type of rigorous experimentation that Bacon demanded
three centuries later, but it did encourage scientists to base their theories on the facts
that emerged from an empirical study of nature.
The contribution of late medieval science to the Scientific Revolution should not
be exaggerated. Philosophers of the fourteenth century continued to accept Ptolemy’s
cosmology and the anatomical and medical theories of the Greek physician Galen
(129–200 c.e.). The unchallenged position of theology as the dominant subject in late
medieval universities also guaranteed that new scientific ideas would receive little fa-
vor if they challenged Christian doctrine.

RENAISSANCE SCIENCE Natural philosophers during the Renaissance contributed

more than their late medieval predecessors to the rise of modern science. Many of the
scientific discoveries of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries drew their inspira-
tion from Greek scientific works that had been rediscovered during the Renaissance.
Copernicus, for example, found the idea of his sun-centered universe in the writings
of Aristarchus of Samos, a Greek astronomer of the third century b.c.e. whose work
had been unknown during the Middle Ages. Similarly, the works of the ancient Greek
philosopher Democritus in the late fifth century b.c.e. introduced the idea, developed
11
 by Boyle and others in the seventeenth century, that matter was divisible into small
17.1 particles known as atoms. The works of Archimedes (287–212 b.c.e.), which had been
virtually unknown in the Middle Ages, stimulated interest in the science of mechanics.
The recovery and translation of previously unknown texts also made scientists aware
17.2 that Greek scientists did not always agree with each other and thus provided a stim-
ulus to independent observation and experimentation as a means of resolving their
differences.
Renaissance revival of the philosophy of Neoplatonism (see Chapter 7) made
17.3 Neoplatonism A philosophy
based on the teachings of Plato an even more direct contribution to the birth of modern science. While most me-
and his successors that flourished dieval natural philosophers relied on the ideas of Aristotle, Neoplatonists drew on
in Late Antiquity, especially in the
the work of Plotinus (205–270 c.e.), the last great philosopher of antiquity who syn-
17.4 teachings of Plotinus. Neopla-
tonism influenced Christianity in thesized the work of Plato, other ancient Greek philosophers, and Persian religious
Late Antiquity. During the Renais- traditions. Neoplatonists stressed the unity of the natural and spiritual worlds. Mat-
sance Neoplatonism was linked to ter is alive, linked to the divine soul that governs the entire universe. To unlock the
17.5 the belief that the natural world mysteries of this living world, Neoplatonists turned to mathematics, because they
was charged with occult forces
believed the divine expressed itself in geometrical harmony, and to alchemy, be-
that could be used in the practice
of magic. cause they sought to uncover the shared essence that linked all creation. They also
believed that the sun, as a symbol of the divine soul, logically stood at the center of
the universe.
Neoplatonic ideas influenced seventeenth-century scientists. Copernicus, for ex-
ample, took from Neoplatonism his idea of the sun sitting at the center of the universe,
as “on a royal throne ruling his children, the planets which circle around him.” From
his reading in Neoplatonic sources Kepler acquired his belief that the universe was
constructed according to geometric principles. Newton was fascinated by the subject of
alchemy, and the original inspiration of his theory of gravitation probably came from
his Neoplatonist professor at Cambridge, who insisted on the presence of spiritual
forces in the physical world. Modern science resulted from an encounter between the
mechanical philosophy, which held that matter was inert, and Neoplatonism, which
claimed that the natural world was alive.

THE COLLAPSE OF PARADIGMS The third internal cause of the Scientific Revolution
was the collapse of the intellectual frameworks that had governed scientific research
since antiquity. In all historical periods scientists prefer to work within an estab-
lished conceptual framework, or what the scholar Thomas Kuhn has referred to as a
paradigm A conceptual model paradigm, rather than introduce new theories. Every so often, however, the paradigm
or intellectual framework within that has governed scientific research for an extended period of time can no longer
which scientists conduct their
account for many different observable phenomena. A scientific revolution occurs when
research and experimentation.
the old paradigm collapses and a new paradigm replaces it.2
The revolutionary developments we have discussed in astronomy and biology were
partly the result of the collapse of old paradigms. In astronomy the paradigm that had
governed scientific inquiry in antiquity and the Middle Ages was the Ptolemaic model,
in which the sun and the planets revolved around the Earth. By the sixteenth cen-
tury, however, new observations had so confused and complicated this model that, to
men like Copernicus, it no longer provided a satisfactory explanation for the material
universe. Copernicus looked for a simpler and more plausible model of the universe.
His sun-centered theory became the new paradigm within which Kepler, Galileo, and
Newton all worked.
In biology a parallel development occurred when the old paradigm constructed by
Galen, in which the blood originated in the liver and traveled through the veins and
arteries, also collapsed because it could not explain the findings of medical scholars.
Harvey introduced a new paradigm, in which the blood circulated through the body.
As in astronomy, Harvey’s new paradigm served as a framework for subsequent bio-
logical research and helped shape the Scientific Revolution.

12
Developments Outside Science
Nonscientific developments also encouraged the development and acceptance of new sci- 17.1
entific ideas. These developments include the spread of Protestantism, the patronage of
scientific research, the invention of the printing press, and military and economic change.
17.2
PROTESTANTISM Protestantism played a limited role in causing the Scientific Revolu-
tion. In the early years of the Reformation, Protestants were just as hostile as Catholics
to the new science. Reflecting the Protestant belief in the literal truth of the Bible, 17.3
Luther referred to Copernicus as “a fool who went against Holy Writ.” Throughout the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, moreover, Catholics as well as Protestants engaged
in scientific research. Indeed, some of the most prominent European natural philoso- 17.4
phers, including Galileo and Descartes, were devout Catholics. Nonetheless, Protes-
tantism encouraged the emergence of modern science in three ways.
First, as the Scientific Revolution gained steam in the seventeenth century, Prot- 17.5
estant governments were more willing than Catholic authorities to allow the publica-
tion and dissemination of new scientific ideas. Protestant governments, for example,
did not prohibit the publication of books that promoted novel scientific ideas on the
grounds that they were heretical, as the papacy did in compiling the Index of Pro-
hibited Books. The greater willingness of Protestant governments, especially those of
England and the Dutch Republic, to tolerate the expression of new scientific ideas
helps to explain why the main geographical arena of scientific investigation shifted
from the Catholic Mediterranean to the Protestant North Atlantic in the second half of
the seventeenth century. (See Different Voices in this chapter.)
Second, seventeenth-century Protestant writers emphasized the idea that God
revealed his intentions not only in the Bible, but also in nature itself. They claimed
that individuals therefore had a duty to study nature, just as it was their duty to read
Scripture to gain knowledge of God’s will. Kepler’s claim that the astronomer was “as a
priest of God to the book of nature” reflected this Protestant outlook.
Third, many seventeenth-century Protestant scientists believed that the millen-
nium, a period of one thousand years when Christ would come again and rule the
world, was about to begin. Millenarians believed that during this period knowledge
would increase, society would improve, and humans would gain control over nature.
Protestant scientists, including Boyle and Newton, conducted their research and ex-
periments believing that their work would contribute to this improvement of human
life after the Second Coming of Christ.

PATRONAGE Scientists could not have succeeded without financial and institutional
support. Only an organizational structure could give science a permanent status, let
it develop as a discipline, and give its members a professional identity. The universi-
ties, which today support scientific research, were not the main source of that support
in the seventeenth century. They remained predominantly clerical institutions with a
vested interest in defending the medieval fusion of Christian theology and Aristotelian
science. Instead of the universities, scientists depended on the patronage of wealthy
and influential individuals, especially the kings, princes, and great nobles who ruled
European states. This group included Pope Urban VIII, ruler of the Papal States.
Patronage, however, could easily be withdrawn. Scientists had to conduct themselves
and their research to maintain the favor of their patrons. Galileo referred to the new
moons of Jupiter that he observed through his telescope as the Medicean stars to flatter
the Medici family that ruled Florence. His publications were inspired as much by his
obligation to glorify Grand Duke Cosimo II as by his belief in the sun-centered theory.
Academies in which groups of scientists could share ideas and work served as
a second important source of patronage. One of the earliest of these institutions
was the Academy of the Lynx-Eyed in Rome, named after the animal whose sharp

13
17.1
Different Voices
17.2 Copernicus and the Papacy
n dedicating his book, On the Revolution of the Heav- Papal Decree Against Heliocentrism, 1616
17.3 I enly Spheres (1543), to Pope Paul II (r. 1464–1471), Co-
pernicus explained that he drew inspiration from ancient
Decree of the Holy Congregation of his Most Illustrious Lord
Cardinals especially charged by His Holiness Pope Paul V
philosophers who had imagined that the Earth moved. Anticipating and by the Holy Apostolic See with the index of books and
condemnation from those who based their astronomical theories on their licensing, prohibition, correction and printing in all of
17.4 the Bible, he appealed to the pope for protection while showing con- Christendom. . . .
tempt for the theories of his opponents. Paul II neither endorsed nor This Holy Congregation has also learned about the
condemned Copernicus’s work, but in 1616, the papacy suspended spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythago-
the book’s publication because it contradicted Scripture. rean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture,
17.5
Copernicus on Heliocentrism and the Bible that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which
is also taught by Nicholaus Copernicus’s On the Revolu-
. . . I began to chafe that philosophers could by no means tions of the Heavenly Spheres and by Diego de Zuñiga’s
agree on any one certain theory of the mechanism of the On Job. This may be seen from a certain letter published
Universe, wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly by a certain Carmelite Father, whose title is Letter of the
Creator … I therefore took pains to read again the works of Reverend Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini on the Pythago-
all the philosophers on whom I could lay my hand to seek rean and Copernican Opinion of the Earth’s Motion and Sun’s
out whether any of them had ever supposed that the mo- Rest and on the New Pythagorean World System … in which
tions of the spheres were other than those demanded by the said Father tries to show that the above mentioned
the mathematical schools. I found first in Cicero that Hice- doctrine of the sun’s rest at the center of the world and
tas had realized that the Earth moved. Afterwards I found the earth’s motion is consonant with the truth and does
in Plutarch that certain others had held the like opinion. . . . not contradict Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that
this opinion may not creep any further to the prejudice
of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that
Taking advantage of this I too began to think of the
the books by Nicholaus Copernicus (On the Revolutions
mobility of the Earth; and though the opinion seemed ab-
of Spheres) and Diego de Zuñiga (On Job) be suspended
surd, yet knowing now that others before me had been
until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Fa-
granted freedom to imagine such circles as they chose
ther Paolo Antonini Foscarini be completely prohibited
to explain the phenomena of the stars, I considered that
and condemned; and that all other books which teach
I also might easily be allowed to try whether, by assum-
the same be likewise prohibited, according to whether
ing some motion of the Earth, sounder explanations than
with the present decree it prohibits[,] condemns and
theirs for the revolution of the celestial spheres might so be
suspends them respectively. In witness thereof this de-
discovered.
cree has been signed by the hand and stamped with the
Thus assuming motions, which in my work I ascribe to
seal of the Most Illustrious and reverend Lord cardinal of
the Earth, by long and frequent observations I have at last
St. Cecilia. Bishop of Albano, on March 5, 1616.
discovered that, if the motions of the rest of the planets be
brought into relation with the circulation of the Earth and SOURCE: From The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, ed. and trans. by Maurice A. Finocchairo,
be reckoned in proportion to the circles of each planet … copyright © 1989 by The Regents of the University of California, is reprinted by permission of
the University of California Press.
the orders and magnitudes of all stars and spheres, nay the
heavens themselves, become so bound together that noth-
For Discussion
ing in any part thereof could be moved from its place with-
out producing confusion of all the other parts and of the 1. Why did the papal authorities prohibit and condemn the
Universe as a whole. . . . work by Antonini Foscarini but only suspend those of Coper-
It may fall out, too, that idle babblers, ignorant of math- nicus and Diego de Zuñiga?
ematics, may claim a right to pronounce a judgment on 2. How did Copernicus and the papal authorities differ about
my work, by reason of a certain passage of Scripture basely classical antiquity and the truth of Holy Scripture?
twisted to serve their purpose. Should any such venture to
criticize and carp at my project, I make no account of them; I
consider their judgment rash, and utterly despise it.

SOURCE: From Nicolaus Copernicus, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (1543), trans. by John
F. Dobson and Selig Brodetsky in Occasional Notes of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2(10), 1947.
Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing.

14
 CHRONOLOGY: THE FORMATION OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES 17.1

17.2
1603
Prince Cesi founds the Academy of 1603
the Lynx-Eyed in Rome.
1657 17.3
1657 Cosimo II de’ Medici founds
the Academy of Experiment
1662 in Florence. 17.4
Founding of the Royal Society
1662
of London under the auspices of
Charles II. 17.5
1666
1666 Founding of the Academy
of Sciences in Paris.

vision symbolized the power of observation required by the new science. Founded
in 1603 by Prince Cesi, the Academy published many of Galileo’s works. In 1657
Cosimo II founded a similar institution in Florence, the Academy of Experiment.
These academies offered a more regular source of patronage than scientists could
acquire from individual positions at court, but they still served the function of glorify-
ing their founders, and they depended on patrons for their continued existence. The
royal academies established in the 1660s, however, especially the Royal Academy of
Sciences in France (1666) and the Royal Society in England (1662), became in effect
public institutions that operated with a minimum of royal intervention and made
possible a continuous program of work.
The mission of the Royal Society in England was the promotion of scientific
knowledge through experimentation. It also placed the results of scientific research
at the service of the state. Members of the Royal Society, for example, did research on
ship construction and military technology. These attempts to use scientific technology
to strengthen the power of the state show how the growth of the modern state and the
emergence of modern science were related.

THE FOUNDING OF THE FRENCH

ACADÈMIE DES SCIENCES Like the
Royal Society in England, the French
Academy of Sciences was dependent
upon royal patronage. Louis XIV, seen sit-
ting in the middle of the painting, used
the occasion to glorify himself as a patron
of the sciences as well as the arts. The
painting also commemorates the building
of the Royal Observatory in Paris, which
is shown in the background.
15
 THE PRINTING PRESS Printing made it much easier for scientists to share their discov-
17.1 eries with others. During the Middle Ages, books were handwritten. Errors could creep
into the text as it was being copied, and the number of copies that could be made of a
manuscript limited the spread of scientific knowledge. The spread of printing ensured
17.2 that scientific achievements could be preserved more accurately and presented to a
broader audience. The availability of printed copies also made it much easier for other
scientists to correct or supplement the data that the authors supplied. Illustrations, dia-
grams, tables, and other schematic drawings that helped to convey the author’s findings
17.3
could also be printed. The entire body of scientific knowledge thus became cumulative.
Printing also made members of the nonscientific community aware of the latest ad-
vances in physics and astronomy and so helped to make science an integral part of the
17.4
culture of educated Europeans.

MILITARY AND ECONOMIC CHANGE The Scientific Revolution occurred at roughly

17.5 the same time that both the conduct of warfare and the European economy were under-
going dramatic changes. As territorial states increased the size of their armies and ar-
senals, they demanded more accurate weapons with longer range. Some of the work
that physicists did during the seventeenth century was deliberately meant to improve
weaponry. Members of the Royal Society in England, for example, conducted extensive
scientific research on the trajectory and velocity of missiles, and so followed Francis
Bacon’s recommendation that scientists place their research at the service of the state.
The needs of the emerging capitalist economy also influenced scientific research.
The study of mechanics, for example, led to new techniques to ventilate mines and
raise coal or ore from them, thus making mining more profitable. Some of the ques-
tions discussed at the meetings of the Royal Society suggest that its members under-
took research to make capitalist ventures more productive and profitable. The research
did not always produce immediate results, but ultimately it increased economic profit-
ability and contributed to the English economy in the eighteenth century.

The Intellectual Consequences

of the Scientific Revolution
17.4 How did the Scientific Revolution influence philosophical and religious thought in the
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries?

he Scientific Revolution profoundly affected the intellectual life of educated

Europeans. The discoveries of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton, as well
as the assumptions on which their work was based, influenced what educated peo-
ple in the West studied, how they approached intellectual problems, and what they
thought about the supernatural realm.

Education
During the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, especially between 1680 and
1720, science and the new philosophy that was associated with it became an important
part of university education. Outside academia, learned societies, public lectures, dis-
cussions in coffeehouses, and popular scientific publications spread the knowledge of
science among the educated members of society. In this way science secured a perma-
nent foothold in Western culture.
The spread of science did not go unchallenged. It encountered academic rivals com-
mitted not only to traditional Aristotelianism but also to Renaissance humanism. In
the late seventeenth century, a conflict arose between “the ancients,” who revered the
16
wisdom of classical authors, and “the moderns,” who emphasized the superiority of the
new scientific culture. The most concrete expression of this conflict was the Battle of 17.1
the Books, an intellectual debate that raged over the question of which group of thinkers
had contributed more to human knowledge. No clear winner in this battle emerged, and
the conflict between the ancients and the moderns was never completely resolved. The 17.2
humanities and the sciences, while included within the same curriculum at many univer-
sities, are still often regarded as representing separate cultural traditions.
17.3
Skepticism and Independent Reasoning
The Scientific Revolution encouraged the habit of skepticism, the tendency to doubt skepticism A tendency to doubt
what we have been taught and are expected to believe. This skepticism formed part of what one has been taught or is 17.4
the method that seventeenth-century scientists adopted to solve philosophical prob- expected to believe.
lems. As we have seen, Descartes, Bacon, Galileo, and Kepler all refused to acknowledge
the authority of classical or medieval texts. They preferred to rely upon the knowledge 17.5
they acquired from observing nature and using their own rational faculties.
In Discourse on the Method, Descartes showed the extremes to which this skepti-
cism could be taken. Descartes doubted the reality of his own sense perceptions and
even his own existence until he realized that the very act of doubting proved his ex-
istence as a thinking being. As he wrote in words that have become famous, “I think,
therefore I am.”3 Upon this foundation Descartes went on to prove the existence of
God and the material world, thereby conquering the skepticism with which he began
his inquiry. In the process, however, he developed an approach to solving intellectual
problems that asked people to question authority and think clearly and systematically
for themselves. The effects of this method became apparent in the late seventeenth
century, when skeptics invoked Descartes’s methodology to challenge both ortho-
dox Judaism and Christianity. Some of the most radical of those opinions came from
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), who grew up in Amsterdam in a community of Spanish
and Portuguese Jews who had fled the Inquisition. Although educated as an Orthodox
Jew, Spinoza also studied Latin and read Descartes and other Christian writers. From
Descartes, Spinoza learned “that nothing ought to be admitted as true but what has

CHRONOLOGY: THE IMPACT OF THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION

1620
Francis Bacon argues for
1620
the necessity of rigorous
experimentation.
1633
1633 Galileo tried by the Roman
Inquisition.
1637
René Descartes publishes 1637
Discourse on the Method.
1670
Baruch Spinoza publishes A Treatise
1670 on Religion and Political Philosophy,
challenging the distinction
1686 between spirit and matter.
Bernard de Fontenelle publishes 1686
Conversations on the
Plurality of Worlds.

17
 been proved by good and solid reason.” This skepticism and independence of thought
17.1 led to his excommunication from the Jewish community at age 24.
Spinoza used Descartes’s skepticism to challenge Descartes himself. He rejected
Descartes’s separation of the mind and the body and his radical distinction between
17.2 the spiritual and the material. For Spinoza there was only one substance in the uni-
verse, which he identified with both God and nature. The claim that God and nature
were two names for the same reality challenged not only the ideas of Descartes, but
also the fundamental tenets of Christianity, including the belief in a personal God who
17.3
had created the natural world by design and continued to govern it. In A Treatise on
Religion and Political Philosophy (1670), Spinoza described “a universe ruled only by
the cause and effect of natural laws, without purpose or design.”
17.4
Spinoza’s skeptical approach to solving philosophical and scientific problems re-
vealed the radical intellectual potential of the new science. The freedom of thought
that Spinoza advocated, as well as the belief that nature followed unchangeable laws
17.5

BARUCH SPINOZA Spinoza was one of the most radical thinkers of the seventeenth century. His identification of
God with nature made him vulnerable to charges of atheism. His followers in the Dutch Republic, who were known
as freethinkers, laid the foundations for the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century.
18
and could be understood in mathematical terms, served as important links between the
Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. We will discuss 17.1
those connections more fully in Chapter 19.

Science and Religion 17.2

The new science presented two challenges to traditional Christian belief. The first in-
volved the apparent contradiction between the sun-centered theory of the universe and
biblical references to the sun’s mobility. Because the Bible was considered the inspired 17.3
word of God, the Church took everything it said, including any passages regarding the
operation of the physical world, as literally true. The Bible’s reference to the sun moving
across the sky served as the basis of the papal condemnation of sun-centered theories 17.4
in 1616 and the prosecution of Galileo in 1633.
The second challenge to traditional Christian belief was the implication that if the
universe functioned as a machine, on the basis of unchanging natural laws, then God 17.5
played little part in its operation. God was akin to an engineer, who had designed the
perfect machine, and therefore had no need to interfere with its workings. This position,
which thinkers known as deists adopted in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, deists Seventeenth- and
denied the Christian belief that God was constantly active in the operation of the world. eighteenth-century thinkers who
More directly, it rejected the possibility of miracles. None of the great scientists of the believed that God created the uni-
verse and established immutable
seventeenth century were themselves deists, but their acceptance of the mechanical phi-
laws of nature but did not subse-
losophy made them vulnerable to the charge that they denied Christian doctrine. quently intervene in the operation
Although the new science and seventeenth-century Christianity appeared to be on of nature or in human affairs.
a collision course, some scientists and theologians insisted that there was no conflict
between them. They argued that religion and science had different concerns. Religion
dealt with the relationship between humanity and God. Science explained how nature
operated. As Galileo wrote in 1615, “The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us Read the document
how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes.” 4 Scripture was not intended to explain Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand
natural phenomena, but to convey religious truths that human reason could not grasp. Duchess Christina, 1615
Another argument for the compatibility of science and religion was the claim that
the mechanical philosophy, rather than relegating God to the role of a retired engineer,
actually manifested God’s unlimited power. In a mechanistic universe God was still the
creator of the physical world and the maker of the laws by which nature operated. He was
still all-powerful and present everywhere. According to Boyle and Newton, moreover,
God played a supremely active role in governing the universe. Not only had he created
the universe, but as Boyle argued, he also continued to keep all matter constantly in mo-
tion. This theory served the purpose of redefining God’s power without diminishing it in
any way. Newton arrived at a similar position in his search for an immaterial agent who
would cause gravity to operate. He proposed that God himself, who he believed “endures
always and is present everywhere,” made bodies move according to gravitational laws.
Throughout the early eighteenth century this feature of Newtonian natural philosophy
served as a powerful argument for the active involvement of God in the universe.
As the new science became more widely accepted, many theologians, especially
Protestants, accommodated scientific knowledge to their religious beliefs. Some Prot-
estants welcomed the discoveries of science as an opportunity to purify the Christian
religion by combating the superstition, magic, and ignorance that they claimed the
Catholic Church had been promoting. Clergymen argued that because God worked
through the processes of nature, scientific inquiry could lead to knowledge of God.
Religion and science could illuminate each other.
Theologians and philosophers also began to expand the role that reason played in re-
ligion. The English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) argued that reason should be the
final judge of the existence of the supernatural and the true meaning of the Bible. This new
emphasis on the role of reason in religion coincided with a rejection of the religious zeal
that had prevailed during the Reformation and the wars of religion. Increasingly, political
and ecclesiastical authorities condemned religious enthusiasm as dangerous and irrational.
19
17.1
Justice in History Read the Document
Galileo Galilei, "Third Letter on

17.2 The Trial of Galileo Sunspots"

he events leading to the trial of Galileo for heresy in Inquisition, this Roman ecclesiastical court has acquired a repu-
17.3 T 1633 began in 1616, when a committee of theolo-
gians reported to the Roman Inquisition that the sun-
tation for being harsh and arbitrary, for administering torture,
for proceeding in secrecy, and for denying the accused the right
centered theory of Copernicus was heretical. Those who accepted to know the charges before the trial. There is some validity to
this theory were declared to be heretics not only because they these criticisms, although the Inquisition did not torture Galileo
17.4 questioned the Bible itself, but because they denied the exclu- or deny him the opportunity to defend himself. The most unfair
sive authority of the Catholic Church to interpret the Bible. The aspect of the proceeding, and of inquisitorial justice in general,
day after this report was submitted, Pope Paul V (r. 1605–1621) was that the same judges who had brought the charges against
instructed Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), a theo- the accused and conducted the interrogation also decided
17.5 logian who was on good terms with Galileo, to warn him to the case. This meant that in a politically motivated trial such as
abandon his Copernican views. Galileo had written extensively Galileo’s, the verdict was a foregone conclusion. To accept
in support of the sun-centered thesis, especially in his Letters Galileo’s defense would have been a sign of weakness and a
on Sunspots (1613) and his repudiation of the pope.
Letter to the Grand Duchess Although the un-
Christina (1615), although derlying issue in the trial
he had never admitted that was whether Galileo was
the theory was proved con- guilty of heresy for deny-
clusively. Then he was told ing the sun’s motion and
not to hold, teach, or defend the Earth’s immobility,
in any way the opinion that the more technical ques-
the sun was stable or the tion was whether by pub-
Earth moved. If he ignored lishing Dialogue he had
that warning, he would be violated the prohibition
prosecuted as a heretic. of 1616. In his defense
During the next 16 Galileo claimed he had
years Galileo published two only written Dialogue to
books. The first, The Assayer present “the physical and
(1623), attacked the views astronomical reasons that
of an Italian philosopher can be advanced for one
regarding comets. The book THE TRIAL OF GALILEO, 1633 Galileo is shown here presenting one of his four side or the other.” He de-
won Galileo support, espe- defenses to the Inquisition. He claimed that his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief nied holding Copernicus’s
cially from the new pope, World Systems did not endorse the Copernican model of the universe. opinion to be true.
Urban VIII (r. 1623–1644), SOURCE: Gérard Blot/Art Resource/Reunion des Musees Nationaux In the end the court
who was eager to be associ- determined that by pub-
ated with the most fashionable intellectual trends. Urban took lishing Dialogue, Galileo had violated the injunction of 1616. He
Galileo under his wing and made him the intellectual star of his had disseminated “the false opinion of the Earth’s motion and
court. Urban even declared that support for Copernicanism was the sun’s stability,” and he had “defended the said opinion al-
rash but not heretical. ready condemned.” Even Galileo’s efforts “to give the impression
The pope’s patronage may have emboldened Galileo to ex- of leaving it undecided and labeled as probable” was still a seri-
ercise less caution in writing his second book of this period, Dia- ous error, because there was no way that “an opinion declared
logue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632). Ostensibly and defined contrary to divine Scripture may be probable.”
an impartial presentation of the rival Ptolemaic and Copernican The court also declared that Galileo had obtained permission
cosmologies, this book promoted Copernicanism in its own to publish the book in Florence without telling the authorities
quiet way. Galileo sought proper authorization from ecclesiasti- there that he was under the injunction of 1616.
cal authorities to put the book in print, but he allowed it to be Throughout the trial every effort was made to distance the
published in Florence before it received official approval from pope from his former protégé. The papal court feared that be-
Rome. cause the pope had been Galileo’s patron and had allowed him
The publication of Dialogue precipitated Galileo’s fall from to develop his ideas, he himself would be implicated in Galileo’s
the pope’s favor. Urban, accused of leniency with heretics, or- heresy. Information regarding the pope’s earlier support for
dered the book taken out of circulation in the summer of 1632 Galileo would not be allowed to surface during the trial. The
and appointed a commission to investigate Galileo’s activities. court made sure, for example, that no one from the court of the
After receiving their report, he turned the matter over to the Ro- Grand Duke of Tuscany in Florence, who had secured Galileo’s
man Inquisition, which charged Galileo with heresy. appointment at the University of Padua and had defended him
The Roman Inquisition had been established in 1542 to pre- (continued on next page)
serve the Catholic faith and prosecute heresy. Like the Spanish

20
(continued from previous page)

throughout this crisis, would testify for him. The trial tells us 2. Should disputes between science and religion be resolved in 17.1
as much about Urban VIII’s efforts to save face as about the a court of law? Why or why not?
Catholic Church’s hostility to the new science.
Taking It Further
The Inquisition required Galileo to renounce his views and
avoid further defense of Copernicanism. After making this hu- Finocchiaro, Maurice (ed). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary 17.2
miliating submission to the court, he was sent to Siena and later History. 1989. A collection of original documents regarding
that year was allowed to return to his villa near Florence, where the controversy between Galileo and the Roman Catholic
he remained under house arrest until his death in 1642. Church.
17.3
Sharratt, Michael. Galileo: Decisive Innovator. 1994. A study of
For Discussion Galileo’s place in the history of science that provides full cov-
1. Galileo was silenced because of what he had printed. Why erage of his trial and papal reconsiderations of it in the late
had he published these works, and why did the Church con- twentieth century. 17.4
sider his publications a threat?

17.5
The new emphasis on the reasonableness of religion and the decline of religious
enthusiasm are often viewed as evidence of a trend toward the secularization of secularization The reduction
European life, a process in which religion gave way to more worldly concerns. In one of the importance of religion in
sense this secular trend was undeniable. By 1700, theology had lost its dominant posi- society and culture.
tion at the universities and religion had lost much of its influence on politics, diplo-
macy, and economic activity.
Religion, however, had not lost its relevance. It remained a vital force in the lives of
most Europeans. Many of those who accepted the new science continued to believe in
a providential God and the divinity of Christ. Moreover, a small but influential group
of educated people, following the lead of the French scientist and philosopher Blaise
Pascal (1623–1662), argued that religious faith occupied a higher sphere of knowledge
that reason and science could not penetrate. Pascal, the inventor of a calculating ma-
chine and the promoter of a system of public coach service in Paris, was an advocate of
the new science. He endorsed the Copernican model of the universe and opposed the
condemnation of Galileo. He introduced a new scientific theory regarding fluids that
later became known as Pascal’s law of pressure. But by claiming that knowledge of God
comes from the heart rather than the mind, Pascal challenged the contention of Locke
and Spinoza that reason was the ultimate arbiter of religious truth.

Humans and the Natural World

17.5 How did the Scientific Revolution change the way in which seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century Europeans thought of the place of human beings in nature?

he spread of scientific knowledge not only redefined the views of educated people
regarding the supernatural, but also led them to reconsider their relationship to
nature. This process involved three separate but related inquiries: to determine the
place of human beings in a sun-centered universe, to investigate how science and
technology had given human beings greater control over nature, and to reconsider the
relationship between men and women in light of new scientific knowledge about the hu-
man mind and body.

The Place of Human Beings in the Universe

The astronomical discoveries of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo offered a new out-
look about the position of human beings in the universe. The Earth-centered Ptolemaic
cosmos that dominated scientific thought during the Middle Ages was also human-
centered. Human beings inhabited the planet at the very center of the universe, and on
21
 that planet they enjoyed a privileged position. They were, after all, created in the image
17.1 of God, according to Christian belief.
The acceptance of a sun-centered model of the universe began to change these
views of humankind. Once it became apparent that the Earth was not the center of
17.2 the universe, human beings began to lose their privileged position in nature. The Co-
pernican universe was neither Earth-centered nor human-centered. Scientists such
as Descartes continued to claim that human beings were the greatest of nature’s
creatures, but their habitation of a tiny planet circling the sun inevitably reduced
17.3
the sense of their own importance. Moreover, as astronomers began to recognize the
incomprehensible size of the cosmos, the possibility emerged that there were other
habitable worlds in the universe, calling into further question the unique status of
17.4
humankind.
In the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries a number of literary works ex-
plored the possibility of other inhabited worlds and forms of life. Kepler’s Somnium,
17.5 or Lunar Astronomy (1634), a book that combined science and fiction, described vari-
ous species of moon dwellers, some of whom were rational and superior to humans.
The most ambitious of these books on extraterrestrial life was Bernard de Fontenelle’s
Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds (1686). This fictional work by a dramatist
and poet who was also well versed in scientific knowledge became immensely popular
throughout Europe and was more responsible than any purely scientific achievement
for leading the general reading public to call into question the centrality of human
beings in Creation.

The Control of Nature

The Scientific Revolution strengthened the confidence human beings had in their
ability to control nature. By disclosing the laws governing the operation of the uni-
verse, the new science gave humans the tools they needed to make nature serve them
more effectively than it had in the past. Francis Bacon, for example, believed that
knowledge of the laws of nature could restore the dominion over nature that humans
had lost in the biblical Garden of Eden. Bacon thought that nature existed for human
beings to control and exploit for their own benefit. His famous saying, “knowledge is
power,” conveyed his confidence that science would give human beings this type of
control. This optimism regarding human control of nature found support in the be-
lief that God permitted such mastery, first by creating a regular and uniform universe
and then by giving humans the rational faculties by which they could understand
nature’s laws.
Many seventeenth-century scientists emphasized the practical applications of
their research, just as scientists often do today. Descartes, who used his knowledge of
optics to improve the grinding of lenses, considered how scientific knowledge could
drain marshes, increase the velocity of bullets, and use bells to make clouds give rain.
In his celebration of the French Academy of Sciences in 1699, Fontenelle wrote that
“the application of science to nature will constantly grow in scope and intensity and
we shall go on from one marvel to the next; the day will come when man will be able
to fly by fitting on wings to keep him in the air … till one day we shall be able to fly
to the moon.”5
The hopes of seventeenth-century scientists for the improvement of human life by
means of technology remained in large part unfulfilled until the eighteenth century.
Only then did the technological promise of the Scientific Revolution begin to be real-
ized, most notably with the innovations that preceded or accompanied the Industrial
Revolution (see Chapter 21). By the middle of the eighteenth century, the belief that
science would improve human life became an integral part of Western culture. Faith
in human progress also became one of the main themes of the Enlightenment, which
will be discussed in Chapter 19.

22
Women, Men, and Nature
The new scientific and philosophical ideas challenged 17.1
ancient and medieval notions about women’s physical
and mental inferiority to men but not other traditional
ideas about gender roles. 17.2
Until the seventeenth century, a woman’s sexual
organs were thought to be imperfect versions of a
man’s, an idea that made woman an inferior version 17.3
of man and, in some respects, a freak of nature. Dur-
ing the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, scien-
tific literature advanced the new idea that women’s 17.4
sexual organs were perfect in their own right and
served distinct functions in reproduction. Aristotle’s
view that men made a more important contribution 17.5
to reproduction than women also came under at-
tack. Semen was long believed to contain the form
of both the body and the soul, while a woman only
contributed the formless matter on which the se-
men acted. By 1700, however, most scholars agreed
that both sexes contributed equally to the process of
reproduction.
Some seventeenth-century natural philoso-
phers also questioned ancient and medieval ideas
about women’s mental inferiority to men. In mak-
ing a radical separation between the mind and
the human body, Descartes, for example, found
no difference between the minds of men and
women. As one of his followers wrote in 1673,
“The mind has no sex.”6 A few upper-class women
provided evidence to support this revolution-
ary claim of female intellectual equality. Princess
Elisabeth of Bohemia, for example, carried on a long
correspondence with Descartes during the 1640s
and challenged many of his ideas on the relationship
between the body and the soul. The English noble- ASTRONOMERS IN SEVENTEENTHCENTURY GERMANY
Elisabetha and Johannes Hevelius working together with a sextant in a German astro-
woman Margaret Cavendish (1623–1673) wrote sci- nomical observatory. More than 14 percent of all German astronomers were female. Most
entific and philosophical works and conversed with of them cooperated with their husbands in their work.
leading philosophers. In early eighteenth-century
France, small groups of women and men gathered in the salons or private sitting
rooms of the nobility to discuss philosophical and scientific ideas. In Germany
women helped their husbands run astronomical observatories.
Although seventeenth-century science laid the foundations for a theory of sexual
equality, it did not challenge other traditional ideas that compared women unfavorably
with men. Most educated people continued to ground female behavior in the humors,
claiming that because women were cold and wet, as opposed to hot and dry, they were
naturally more deceptive, unstable, and melancholic than men. They also continued to
identify women with nature itself, which had always been depicted as female. Bacon’s
use of masculine metaphors to describe science and his references to “man’s mastery
over nature” therefore seemed to reinforce traditional ideas of male dominance over
women. His language also reinforced traditional notions of men’s superior rational-
ity.7 In 1664 the secretary of the Royal Society, which excluded women from mem-
bership, proclaimed that the mission of that institution was to develop a “masculine
philosophy.”8
23
 The new science thus strengthened the theoretical foundations for the male con-
17.1 trol of women at a time when many men expressed concern over women’s “dis-
orderly” and “irrational” conduct. In a world populated with witches, rebels, and
other women who refused to adhere to conventional standards of proper feminine
17.2 behavior, the adoption of a masculine philosophy was associated with the reassertion
of patriarchy.

17.3
CONCLUSION
Science and Western Culture
17.4
Unlike many of the cultural developments in the history of the West, the Scien-
tific Revolution owes very little to Eastern influences. During the Middle Ages the
Islamic civilizations of the Middle East produced a rich body of scientific knowl-
17.5 edge that influenced the development of medieval science in Europe, but by the
time of the Scientific Revolution, Middle Eastern science no longer occupied the
frontlines of scientific research. Middle Eastern natural philosophers had little to
offer their European counterparts as they made their contributions to the Scientific
Revolution.
China and India had also accumulated a large body of scientific knowledge in
ancient and medieval times. When Jesuit missionaries began teaching Western sci-
ence and mathematics to the Chinese in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
they learned about earlier Chinese technological advances, including the invention
of the compass, gunpowder, and printing. They also learned that ancient Chinese
astronomers had been the first to observe solar eclipses and comets. By the time
the Jesuits arrived, however, Chinese science had entered a period of decline. When
those missionaries returned home, they introduced Europeans to many aspects of
Chinese culture but very few scientific ideas that European natural philosophers
found useful.
None of these Eastern civilizations had a scientific revolution comparable to the
one that occurred in the West in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For China
the explanation probably lies in the absence of military and political incentives to pro-
mote scientific research at a time when the vast Chinese empire was relatively stable.
In the Middle East the explanation is more likely that Islam during these years failed
to give priority to the study of the natural world. In Islam nature was either entirely
secular (that is, not religious) and hence not worthy of study on its own terms or so
heavily infused with spiritual value that it could not be subjected to rational analysis.
In Europe, however, religious and cultural traditions allowed scientists to view nature
as both a product of supernatural forces and something that was separate from the
supernatural. Nature could therefore be studied objectively without losing its religious
significance. Only when nature was viewed as both the creation of God and at the same
time as independent of God could it be subjected to mathematical analysis and brought
under human control.
Scientific and technological knowledge became a significant component of
Western culture, and in the eighteenth century Western science gave many edu-
cated Europeans a new source of identity. These people believed that their knowl-
edge of science, in conjunction with their Christian religion, their classical culture,
and their political institutions, made them different from, if not superior to, people
living in the East.
The rise of Western science and technology played a role in the growth of Euro-
pean dominance over Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Science gave Western states
the military and navigational technology that helped them gain control of foreign
lands. Knowledge of botany and agriculture allowed Western powers to develop the

24
resources of the areas they colonized and use these resources to improve their own
societies. Some Europeans even appealed to science to justify their dominance of the 17.1
people in the lands they settled and ruled. To this process of Western imperial expan-
sion we now turn.
17.2

MAKING CONNECTIONS
1. Were the changes in astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology in the sixteenth 17.3
and seventeenth centuries revolutionary? In which field were the changes most
significant?
2. Scientists today often refer to the scientific method. Was there a scientific method 17.4
in the seventeenth century or did scientists employ various methods?
3. Why did the Scientific Revolution occur at this time? Did it owe its development
more to internal or external developments? 17.5
4. What does the conflict between the supporter of a sun-centered theory and the
Catholic Church suggest about the compatibility of science and religion in the sev-
enteenth century?

TAKING IT FURTHER
For suggested readings see page 000.

25