![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Evanmayer1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Aarongg20.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is about whether the article Scientific Revolution should be moved to Scientific revolution. Folowing the discussion the move was made on 27 July 2009.
Scientific Revolution → Scientific revolution — Not a proper noun. — Jacob Lundberg ( talk) 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
As a beginning for the research, I made a new subsection below where we can record what we find. Finell (Talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
As I suggested in the discussion below, the recent lower casing of the article title may have led to confusion here between the Scientific Revolution as a specific historical period and the general concept of a scientific revolution as discussed by Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
I think the capitalization made a useful distinction and should be restored. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 19:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Scientific Revolution be capitalized as a unique, specific time period just as the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution are?-- Dustinnewman26 ( talk) 02:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Disagreement hinged on whether or not this is a proper noun. Some said it was, some said it wasn't. I took a look and I think it probably should be capitalized, but honestly to draw that conclusion from this move request would be absurd. I feel safe calling the result of this discussion "no consensus". ( non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Scientific revolution → ? – This article address a particular era during which a number of particularly significant scientific breakthroughs were made; isn't this why, therefore, that – like the Industrial Revolution example previously given – it's given the name "Scientific Revolution" (or perhaps "The [S/s]cientific [R/r]evolution"), while "[S/s]cientific revolution" can/is used to describe/refer to any one of these and other breakthroughs across a (much) longer period (regardless of whether they merit it)...? Scan the media and popular science books, for instance...
Sardanaphalus (
talk)
14:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Your comments show that the proper assessment for the use of upper or lower casing for the term "scientific revolution" in the scientific literature is not a simple matter, and needs some careful consideration. Nevertheless, I feel that it is the way to follow to decide on the subject, if we are to avoid personal opinions or preferences. For the moment I suspend my opposition to the change. Also, I think that in addition to type case, the use of the article "the" has to be included in the consideration for the title change.-- Auró ( talk) 19:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Belated answer: Probably yes, mostly, but it'll depend on contextual details. The Cultural Revolution, for example, is something different from the others; it's political sloganeering like the New Deal and other such phrases, when used in a general abstract way in discussing communism (though in some places it was actually pretty much a real, armed revolution, when used in a more specific meaning, in which case it's like the American Revolution or the Glorious Revolution, a capitalized conflict name). It presently mostly seems borderline conventional to capitalize Agricultural Revolution and Industrial Revolution as general world-changing phases of human cultural shift, but this capitalization isn't universal and certainly isn't necessary. It's also misleading, because there were multiple agricultural revolutions in different parts of the world, which sometimes had no connection to each other at all. The AR in the Americas was independent of those in Eureasia and Africa (which are generally thought to be related to each other, starting around the Fertile Crescent and radiating outward over centuries, though in fits and starts, and not in a centralized way, but through piecemeal adoption of techniques and behaviors which varies from place to place and cultural exchange to cultural exchange. And there is still some debate about this diffusing model, especially for eastern Asia and southern Africa). "Commercial revolution" is clearly not a proper name, and isn't even a very well-used term. It's a descriptive appellation for a vague period, or a series of vaguely connected cultural shifts, in one region's history, which to our modern eyes culminated one kind of shift, toward modern commerce and the ascendancy of the merchant/middle class and of capitalism. Not a term anyone would have used during or immediately after it (which makes it similar to "agricultural revolution" in being an anachronistic retro-label we've come up with in modern times, while qualitatively different from the industrial revolution, the digital revolution, etc., etc. (even "industrial revolution" was used in the 1800s, while it was still ongoing, and notably the term was introduced in a period when Capitalize Because Its Important was a typical style in English, one which has long since been abandoned except in marketing). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Do we have this stage in the article?-- Tranletuhan ( talk) 09:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus is that the title is a proper noun and should be capitalized. Aervanath ( talk) 20:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Scientific revolution →
Scientific Revolution – See the previous discussions above. The term "scientific revolution" can have two meanings. One sense is any major change in any field of science, such as how the introduction of the
atomic model brought a scientific revolution in chemistry or the discovery of
DNA led to a scientific revolution in biology. Currently the Wikipedia article describing these sorts of events is
paradigm shift, someone could establish another Wikipedia article called
scientific revolution (social change). Another sense of the term is the particular event called the "Scientific Revolution" which began in the late 1500s. This Wikipedia article is about that particular event which does use a proper noun.
There is debate from 2009-14 about the capitalization in this article. I agree that most sources do not capitalize the term "scientific revolution", but also some sources refer to the general concept of a scientific revolution while others which use the term as a proper noun do. The content in this Wikipedia article is about one event, and therefore the term here is a proper noun.
I wanted the move because I am developing an article about an event which sources call a modern scientific revolution in its field, and currently, there is no Wikipedia article on the general concept of "scientific revolution". There are many "scientific revolutions" in various fields of science, but there is only one "Scientific Revolution" which established modern science itself. See also that Category:Scientific revolution currently contains only articles about the 1500s, when probably we need a category for all the later developments which sources call scientific revolutions. Increasing clarity here would clarify other Wikipedia content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
You all commented in the past. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1aa1ghl56t ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
|
(1) The first point of concern was what I saw in the lead, unsourced it will not surprise you to learn, which makes the rather grandiose claim that "The completion of the Scientific Revolution is attributed to the "grand synthesis" of Isaac Newton's 1687 Principia." In the Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution: From Copernicus to Newton(2000, ed. W. Applebaum, Routledge, NY) I cannot find this phrase or sentiment. It continues "The work formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, thereby completing the synthesis of a new cosmology." Most certainly, but does that signify a "grand synthesis" that ended the Scientific Revolution? Perhaps, but I would be very skeptical,
(2) The first paragraph of the introduction proceeds reasonably and without controversy, highlighting how jolting, paradigm-shifting advances in science have often been term "revolutionary" (calling on the authority of conventionally celebrated figures of]the Scientific Revolution such as Alexis Clairaut [1] and Antoine Lavoisier [2]. However, the article then goes on to quote the English theologian and poet William Whewell... using a quote from him to say "this gave rise" to the "common view of the Scientific Revolution today", as elucidated by the Encyclopedia Britannica
(3) The next paragraph appears to me as a travesty of Original Research. Repeating my edit summary "the author of this paragraph seems to be making a lineal causal link from Copernicus to Newton to Bacon to Galileo as the "Beginning, Middle, and End" of the Scientific Revolution. Such a claim would require exquisite referencing to overcome its presumed extreme reductionism/oversimplification."
(4) In the section Significance we a treated to a conventional summation of the SR effects by one Joseph Ben-David. Followed by a 1611 poem from English religious writer John Donne (seriously!), some commentary from mid-20th-century English historian Herbert Butterfield and then we here from Australian gentleman called Peter Harrison, who largely focuses on religion and works at a 5th-rate University in Australia, who tells the reader that Christianity was a major contributor to the Scientific Revolution.
(5) In the section Empiricism, seven individuals are mentioned, all of them British, except for Descartes who is aligned against the empiricists as a rationalist (although this is not fully explained for the reader).
(6) In the section Baconian Science (what?), we are told "The philosophical underpinnings of the Scientific Revolution were laid out by Francis Bacon, who has been called the father of empiricism." Even Bacon himself acknowledged Italian philosopher Bernardino Telesio, who had influenced Pierre Gassendi long before Bacon came on the scene. Instead we are only told of Hume, Berkeley, Hobbes, and William Gilbert. As if [[[Condillac]], Alhazen, Didorot, Helvétius, Moritz Schlick and Rudolf Carnap never existed. Also the reader would have no idea that the extreme empiricist philosophy of Berkeley for instance, would not only be intolerable to contemporary scientific minds but his theories of optics have been decisively disproven by modern medical, technological, and scientific advances.
I could go on, but I'm running out of steam. Time fae ma bed. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 08:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Not Sure how do you do responses, but to the baconian science section issue, just saying that Alhazen was not read by all of these, and the scientific revolution was adopted somewhat independently, or maybe there is some kind of link I just do not know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.83.186.34 ( talk) 06:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to edit the article. Dan100 ( Talk) 20:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I suspect the author leaned heavily on Steven Shapin's "The Scientific Revolution" - the general scope of the article follows Chapter 1, at least. That said, I would consider challenging the term "revolution" and instead consider that the events that comprised the scientific revolution were in fact more evolutionary. And to Shapin's point, the "revolution" wasn't reverting back to anything; if anything, it was refuting Aristotelian philosophy. AFineClaret ( talk) 19:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Wikipedia article on the "Scientific Revolution", the photo associated with the "Renaissance" hyperlink i.e. found ion the line "...The Scientific Revolution took place in Europe starting towards the second half of the Renaissance period" and the term "Scientific Renaissance" seems inappropriate, perhaps a deliberate lampoon. I would suggest another photo, perhaps of Isaac Newton. 2601:603:4C7E:4C10:1531:83E2:2047:ACE8 ( talk) 23:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Evanmayer1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Aarongg20.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is about whether the article Scientific Revolution should be moved to Scientific revolution. Folowing the discussion the move was made on 27 July 2009.
Scientific Revolution → Scientific revolution — Not a proper noun. — Jacob Lundberg ( talk) 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
As a beginning for the research, I made a new subsection below where we can record what we find. Finell (Talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
As I suggested in the discussion below, the recent lower casing of the article title may have led to confusion here between the Scientific Revolution as a specific historical period and the general concept of a scientific revolution as discussed by Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
I think the capitalization made a useful distinction and should be restored. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 19:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Scientific Revolution be capitalized as a unique, specific time period just as the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution are?-- Dustinnewman26 ( talk) 02:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Disagreement hinged on whether or not this is a proper noun. Some said it was, some said it wasn't. I took a look and I think it probably should be capitalized, but honestly to draw that conclusion from this move request would be absurd. I feel safe calling the result of this discussion "no consensus". ( non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Scientific revolution → ? – This article address a particular era during which a number of particularly significant scientific breakthroughs were made; isn't this why, therefore, that – like the Industrial Revolution example previously given – it's given the name "Scientific Revolution" (or perhaps "The [S/s]cientific [R/r]evolution"), while "[S/s]cientific revolution" can/is used to describe/refer to any one of these and other breakthroughs across a (much) longer period (regardless of whether they merit it)...? Scan the media and popular science books, for instance...
Sardanaphalus (
talk)
14:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Your comments show that the proper assessment for the use of upper or lower casing for the term "scientific revolution" in the scientific literature is not a simple matter, and needs some careful consideration. Nevertheless, I feel that it is the way to follow to decide on the subject, if we are to avoid personal opinions or preferences. For the moment I suspend my opposition to the change. Also, I think that in addition to type case, the use of the article "the" has to be included in the consideration for the title change.-- Auró ( talk) 19:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Belated answer: Probably yes, mostly, but it'll depend on contextual details. The Cultural Revolution, for example, is something different from the others; it's political sloganeering like the New Deal and other such phrases, when used in a general abstract way in discussing communism (though in some places it was actually pretty much a real, armed revolution, when used in a more specific meaning, in which case it's like the American Revolution or the Glorious Revolution, a capitalized conflict name). It presently mostly seems borderline conventional to capitalize Agricultural Revolution and Industrial Revolution as general world-changing phases of human cultural shift, but this capitalization isn't universal and certainly isn't necessary. It's also misleading, because there were multiple agricultural revolutions in different parts of the world, which sometimes had no connection to each other at all. The AR in the Americas was independent of those in Eureasia and Africa (which are generally thought to be related to each other, starting around the Fertile Crescent and radiating outward over centuries, though in fits and starts, and not in a centralized way, but through piecemeal adoption of techniques and behaviors which varies from place to place and cultural exchange to cultural exchange. And there is still some debate about this diffusing model, especially for eastern Asia and southern Africa). "Commercial revolution" is clearly not a proper name, and isn't even a very well-used term. It's a descriptive appellation for a vague period, or a series of vaguely connected cultural shifts, in one region's history, which to our modern eyes culminated one kind of shift, toward modern commerce and the ascendancy of the merchant/middle class and of capitalism. Not a term anyone would have used during or immediately after it (which makes it similar to "agricultural revolution" in being an anachronistic retro-label we've come up with in modern times, while qualitatively different from the industrial revolution, the digital revolution, etc., etc. (even "industrial revolution" was used in the 1800s, while it was still ongoing, and notably the term was introduced in a period when Capitalize Because Its Important was a typical style in English, one which has long since been abandoned except in marketing). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Do we have this stage in the article?-- Tranletuhan ( talk) 09:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus is that the title is a proper noun and should be capitalized. Aervanath ( talk) 20:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Scientific revolution →
Scientific Revolution – See the previous discussions above. The term "scientific revolution" can have two meanings. One sense is any major change in any field of science, such as how the introduction of the
atomic model brought a scientific revolution in chemistry or the discovery of
DNA led to a scientific revolution in biology. Currently the Wikipedia article describing these sorts of events is
paradigm shift, someone could establish another Wikipedia article called
scientific revolution (social change). Another sense of the term is the particular event called the "Scientific Revolution" which began in the late 1500s. This Wikipedia article is about that particular event which does use a proper noun.
There is debate from 2009-14 about the capitalization in this article. I agree that most sources do not capitalize the term "scientific revolution", but also some sources refer to the general concept of a scientific revolution while others which use the term as a proper noun do. The content in this Wikipedia article is about one event, and therefore the term here is a proper noun.
I wanted the move because I am developing an article about an event which sources call a modern scientific revolution in its field, and currently, there is no Wikipedia article on the general concept of "scientific revolution". There are many "scientific revolutions" in various fields of science, but there is only one "Scientific Revolution" which established modern science itself. See also that Category:Scientific revolution currently contains only articles about the 1500s, when probably we need a category for all the later developments which sources call scientific revolutions. Increasing clarity here would clarify other Wikipedia content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
You all commented in the past. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1aa1ghl56t ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
|
(1) The first point of concern was what I saw in the lead, unsourced it will not surprise you to learn, which makes the rather grandiose claim that "The completion of the Scientific Revolution is attributed to the "grand synthesis" of Isaac Newton's 1687 Principia." In the Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution: From Copernicus to Newton(2000, ed. W. Applebaum, Routledge, NY) I cannot find this phrase or sentiment. It continues "The work formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, thereby completing the synthesis of a new cosmology." Most certainly, but does that signify a "grand synthesis" that ended the Scientific Revolution? Perhaps, but I would be very skeptical,
(2) The first paragraph of the introduction proceeds reasonably and without controversy, highlighting how jolting, paradigm-shifting advances in science have often been term "revolutionary" (calling on the authority of conventionally celebrated figures of]the Scientific Revolution such as Alexis Clairaut [1] and Antoine Lavoisier [2]. However, the article then goes on to quote the English theologian and poet William Whewell... using a quote from him to say "this gave rise" to the "common view of the Scientific Revolution today", as elucidated by the Encyclopedia Britannica
(3) The next paragraph appears to me as a travesty of Original Research. Repeating my edit summary "the author of this paragraph seems to be making a lineal causal link from Copernicus to Newton to Bacon to Galileo as the "Beginning, Middle, and End" of the Scientific Revolution. Such a claim would require exquisite referencing to overcome its presumed extreme reductionism/oversimplification."
(4) In the section Significance we a treated to a conventional summation of the SR effects by one Joseph Ben-David. Followed by a 1611 poem from English religious writer John Donne (seriously!), some commentary from mid-20th-century English historian Herbert Butterfield and then we here from Australian gentleman called Peter Harrison, who largely focuses on religion and works at a 5th-rate University in Australia, who tells the reader that Christianity was a major contributor to the Scientific Revolution.
(5) In the section Empiricism, seven individuals are mentioned, all of them British, except for Descartes who is aligned against the empiricists as a rationalist (although this is not fully explained for the reader).
(6) In the section Baconian Science (what?), we are told "The philosophical underpinnings of the Scientific Revolution were laid out by Francis Bacon, who has been called the father of empiricism." Even Bacon himself acknowledged Italian philosopher Bernardino Telesio, who had influenced Pierre Gassendi long before Bacon came on the scene. Instead we are only told of Hume, Berkeley, Hobbes, and William Gilbert. As if [[[Condillac]], Alhazen, Didorot, Helvétius, Moritz Schlick and Rudolf Carnap never existed. Also the reader would have no idea that the extreme empiricist philosophy of Berkeley for instance, would not only be intolerable to contemporary scientific minds but his theories of optics have been decisively disproven by modern medical, technological, and scientific advances.
I could go on, but I'm running out of steam. Time fae ma bed. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 08:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Not Sure how do you do responses, but to the baconian science section issue, just saying that Alhazen was not read by all of these, and the scientific revolution was adopted somewhat independently, or maybe there is some kind of link I just do not know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.83.186.34 ( talk) 06:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to edit the article. Dan100 ( Talk) 20:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I suspect the author leaned heavily on Steven Shapin's "The Scientific Revolution" - the general scope of the article follows Chapter 1, at least. That said, I would consider challenging the term "revolution" and instead consider that the events that comprised the scientific revolution were in fact more evolutionary. And to Shapin's point, the "revolution" wasn't reverting back to anything; if anything, it was refuting Aristotelian philosophy. AFineClaret ( talk) 19:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Wikipedia article on the "Scientific Revolution", the photo associated with the "Renaissance" hyperlink i.e. found ion the line "...The Scientific Revolution took place in Europe starting towards the second half of the Renaissance period" and the term "Scientific Renaissance" seems inappropriate, perhaps a deliberate lampoon. I would suggest another photo, perhaps of Isaac Newton. 2601:603:4C7E:4C10:1531:83E2:2047:ACE8 ( talk) 23:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)