Science and religion:

● According to John medley Brooke, ’Such was the impact of scientific

revolution that the only landmark with which it could be compared was the rise
of christianity.’ So it becomes important to study the relationship between
these two important cultural forces.
● A. N. Whitehead considered that the future course of history would depend on
the decision of his generation as to the proper relations between science and
religion, so powerful were religious symbols through which men and women
conferred meaning to their lives, and so powerful were the religious symbols
through which they could manipulate their environments.these are the two
most strongest forces that influence men and they seem to have been placed
against each other; The force of our religious intuitions and the force of our
impulse to accurate observation and logical deduction.
● He further says that both science and religion are in conflict as well as both
are in a state of continual development.
● John medley Brooke mentions that: In popular literature three positions are
commonly found, which, though not equally unsatisfactory, turn out to be
problematic.
● 1) One often encounters the view that there is an underlying conflict between
scientific and religious mentalities, the one dealing in testable facts, the other
deserting reason for faith; the one relishing change as scientific understanding
advances, the other finding solace in eternal verities.
● 2) A second, quite different view also appeals to history for its vindication.
Science and religion are sometimes presented not as contending forces but
as essentially complementary each answering a different set of human needs.
On this view, scientific and theological language have to be related to different
spheres of practice. Discourse about God, which is inappropriate in the
context of laboratory practice, may be appropriate in the context of worship or
of self examination.
● 3) A third view, which can also be overstated, expresses a more intimate
relationship between scientific and religious concerns. Contrary to the first -
the conflict model - it is asserted that certain religious beliefs may be
conducive to scientific activity. And contrary to the second - the separationist
position - it is argued that interaction between religion and science, far from
being detrimental, can work to the advantage of both. the thesis of the
American sociologist, R. K. Merton, that puritan values assisted the expansion
of science in seventeenth- century England, would be a good example of
historical scholarship in which the mutual relevance of science and religion is
affirmed, rather than constant conflict or complete separation.
● The fact that science has been used as a resource both by Christians and
their critics may call into question another common assumption that modern
science has been largely - responsible for the secularisation of society. Have
the sciences not progressively diminished that sense of awe and mystery that
once induced deference to the gods? It is an argument with a long history and
a fine pedigree. But it has not passed unchallenged. Critics point out that it
may be an unquestioned survival from nineteenth-century positivism when a
sense of liberation through science was at its height. They add that it
mistakenly assumes religion to depend more on the physical environment
than on the quality of social relations. And it ignores those respects in which
 scientific knowledge may magnify rather than diminish a sense of awe. The
place of science in the process of secularisation may also require reevaluation
in the light of religious resurgence in polities where science-based
technologies are not conspicuous by their absence. In the pages that follow,
we shall try to keep an open mind on issues of this kind.

- John Henry in his book The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern
Science says that there is a lingering tendency to see science and religion as
thoroughly opposed to each other but this isn’t the whole story. He talks about
reasons other than religious that caused condemnation of their scientific enquiries.
He also talks about religious motivation that leads every major personality to work on
something.
There are two sets of views on the relation between protestant reformation and the
rise of modern science:

1. those who say that experimental science was the product of protestant ethics
2. And those who argue that development of modern science was not just
confined to Protestant society. Even catholic societies like Italy underwent
scientific developments in this period.

First let’s look at protestantism and catholicism a bit. Countries.

Let’s cover the first part of the debate; those who feel that protestant ethics paved
the way for protestant ethics.
Modern science was closely associated with the ideas o f the Protestant religion and
believed that the experimental science developed by the seventeenth century
because o f the new ethical considerations provided by the Protestant thinkers, we
can include the names of Max Weber, R.K. Merton, S.F. Mason and Christopher Hill.
Weber: According to Weber, the Protestant religion, particularly Calvinism, created a
favourable atmosphere for experimental science.
Robert K. Mertons’ views:(American sociologist) Science, Technology and Society
in Seventeenth Century England,

● Protestant Reformation promoting the rise of Western capitalism,

● According to merton, those factors which promote active life and scientific
experimentation were to be seen in the Protestant ethics and religion. He
considers the role o f Puritanism as crucial to the emergence of modern
science. He compares scientists with religious reformers and suggests three
important elements of the relationship between the two: First, the early
Protestant ethos was expressed in a scientific thought. Second, Calvinism
emphasised good deeds, which the scientists also considered important hard
work and experimentation. Third, Merton suggests that there was a definite
combination between the minute details of the political doctrines of Calvinism
and the principles of modern science.
● He argued that Protestant religious values, particularly those of the Puritan
and Piest sects, created an intellectual atmosphere that helped scientific
development. Merton believed that a godly involvement in the worldly affairs
would also encourage science. Citing examples from the seventeenth-century
England, he argued that the social utility of both science and technology was
increasingly recognised by Puritan values. Merton tried to provide evidence to
his argument that Protestants played a major lead in the Royal Society of
London. He cites the names of Theodore Haak, Denis Papin (a French
Calvinist expelled from France), Thomas Sydenham and Sir William Petty.
● While supporting religious reasons, he doesn’t ignore other reaonsg for
scientific developments but says that Puritan values helped to create an
audience that was receptive to programmes for the improvement of man’s life.
● S.F. Mason ( The Scientific Revolution and Protestant Reformation) is
another contributor to this debate on the relation ship between science and
reformation.
● Mason ascribes a variety of factors to the growth of scientific movements: new
technical problems in the field of industry, navigation and war were caused by
economic stimulus, the religious drive by the Puritans towards performing
good work and many other factors.
● He talks about a relation between science and mercantile enterprise. Robert
Recorde and John Dee were technical advisers to the Muscovy Company and
the Cathy Voyagers. The merchants promoted science through the translation
of scientific works and sponsorship of lectures on mathematics. Talks about
SirThomas Greesham contribution to the promotion of science in Greesham
College. Mason points out that during the early seventeenth century, English
science remained connected with navigational and mercantile problems.
● Royal society of London. During the Civil War this college became the
meeting place of a group of scientists who termed themselves the
‘Philosophical College’, which became the immediate precursor of the Royal
Society.
● Mason suggests three factors for that the preponderance of Protestants over
Catholics among the important scientists of modern Europe: First,
concordance between the early Protestant ethos and the scientific attitude.
second, the use of science to highlight the basis of Christian thought by the
later Calvinists, particularly the English Puritans; and third, there existed some
congruity between the more abstract elements of Protestant theology and the
 theories ot science. He Gives the example of Swiss and German reformers to
points out that the new religious thought implied that man should reject the
guidance and authority of the priests and should seek spiritual truth through
his own experience. Similarly, modern scientists turned away from the
systems of ancient and medieval philosophers to search for scientific truth
through their own empirical and theoretical experience. According to Mason,
Thomas Sprat, a Calvinist, expressed a similarity of aim between early
modern science and Protestantism. For him, the Anglican Church and the
Royal Society may place equal claim to the word Reformation, the one
encompassing it in religion and the other revealing it in philosophy. Mason
also points out that early Lutheranism appears to be in accord with the
scientific attitude because the earliest technical study of the Copernican
theory of the world came from the scholars of the University of Wittenberg in
Germany, an important centre of German Reformation.
● While establishing the relationship between English Puritans and scientists.
Mason argues that the Puritans emphasised the religious duty of performing
‘good works’ and they placed scientific activity among the good works that
was sanctioned by Puritan ethic. The anti-authoritarianism and individualism
was common to the early Protestant and modern scientists. The main centres
o f scientific activity passed from Catholic Italy and Lutheran Germany to the
territories which were under the influence of Calvin, such as England, Holland
and France.Thus the impetus to scientific activity was given by the religious
ethos and this, according to Mason, was the single most important element
that integrated science with religion in the seventeenth-century England.
● Christopher hill (he Century o f Revolution and The Intellectual Origins o f
the English Revolution)
● Christopher hill cites 4 works to prove the relationship between protestantism
and the rise of science: Candolle’s study of scientists from 1660s to mid-19th
century, Merton’s attempt to give a puritan ethos the principal credit for rise of
science in england, J.pelseneer’s investigation of 16th century Belgian
scientists and S.F.Mason’s analysis of certain parallels between the thought
of a few early scientisits and reformers.
● Hill considers scientific development as an ordinary social happening along
with the rise of Puritanism and the bourgeois class. Hill concentrates on
intellectual movements related to the English Revolution. He suggests that the
groups involved in this conflict laid the foundation of organised experimental
science between 1640 and 1660. Their intellectual growth was based on
Puritan social values. Hence the Puritan revolution in England had a strong
scientific element. -
● He also emphasises that Puritanism, modern science, merchant class and the
skilled artisans had a close relationship, which is reflected in the
establishment of Gresham College in 1579. According to Hill, this college was
the creation of the merchants and traders of London and it had a number of
scientists on its faculty. It was not an ordinary college like the one that existed
before. It taught numerous subjects. During the Civil War, it became
associated to an increasing degree with the Puritan movement and became
the meeting place of a group of scientists who were the immediate precursors
of the Royal Society of London.

Scholars who don’t support these views and refute these arguments;
T.S. Kuhn in The Copernical Revolution, suggests that both religious groups, the
Catholics as well as the Protestants opposed Copernicus. Martin Luther, John Calvin
and Melantchot all were against the view that earth circled the sun. ridiculed his
views whereas the Popes who were against the Reformation welcomed such views
like the counter reformation popes like pope 3 and George 13th paved for the
calendar reform. . They were interested in upgrading the old lunar calendar.
H.F. Kearney refutes the arguments of Christopher Hill for treating the Scientific
Revolution too narrowly. Kearney emphasises that it was a European movement
rather than English and that Hill should have attempted a sociological interpretation
on a European scale. Hill feels that merchants and craftsmen played a decisive
social role. For Kearney, the patronage for mathematics did not come from a single
source of prosperous merchants. For him, the essence of the relationship between
Puritanism and science cannot be established because the term Puritanism is
extremely ambiguous. In the end, Kearney submits that it is possible that a more
critical attitude towards religious authority created a climate of opinion that was
scientific in approach. Parallel to the Protestant Reformation, there was a rival
movement taking shape throughout the sixteenth century, which included important
disciples from both Catholic and Protestant faiths. Among them were men like
Lipsius and Montaigne and perhaps scientists like Galileo and Kepler and even
Francis Bacon. Thus, Kearney concludes that there was no clear connection
between Puritanism and science but he does not rule out the alternative theories of a
relationship between religious radicalism and the pursuit of science.
T.K. Rabb (religion and the rise of modern science) criticises some of the arguments
of Hill
- there is heavy preponderance of protestants among scientists after 1640s.

● Before 1640s, suggests that it is not easy to find any neat statistical
connection between Puritanism and the rise of experimental science. The
story gets clear by 1640s only.
● Italy as the centre of scientific inquiry; He points out that Catholic Italy was the
only centre of scientific experimentation in the early period of modern science.
Most famous pioneers of science were though not devoted to church but were
committed to catholicism. Almost all the contributors to the Scientific
Revolution had lived in Italy for some time or studied at the important centres
of learning. Copernicus was a cleric and held strong religious views. Galileo
and Descartes wished to stay within the religious fold and Kepler, though he
was a Protestant, had to depend on Jesuits for astronomical experiments.
Rabb criticises Hill for taking only those aspects of Puritanism which were
favourable to his arguments, and confining his entire concept of Scientific
Revolution to the case study of England.
● However, Rabb concedes that after 1640, the Puritans did contribute to
modern science. This cannot be said of the period before 1640 because till
this period the Puritans were involved in religious education rather than
science.
● Criticises the 4 works cited by hill; candolle’s book only dealt with 1540s to
1640s, in J.Pelseener’s work on religious affiliations of Belgian scientist from
1530s to 1600, statistics is not clear, has not given any definition of scientific
work.
 ● He also criticises Merton’s views for drawing conclusions not between
protestantism and catholicism but between anglicianism and puritanism
● He says that it is only by ignoring the enormous scientific activity of the period
that major claims can be made for the importance of Protestantism. Catholics
also coming with scientific discoveries from 1540s to 1630s. Kepler relied on
jesuits to provide him astronomical observations.

Toby Huff, Without emphasising religion, Huff gives a culturist interpretation of the
rise of modern science. he compares China and the Arab with Europe in the field of
science and says that Europe moved ahead because of dramatic cultural differences
and the key to European progress was the legal revolution that emphasised
rational study of nature based on criticism. The Arabs and the Chinese lacked
the autonomous legal corporate bodies that were needed for the free and objective
investigation of nature.The establishment of a large number of universities in Europe
encouraged independent learning and free thought.
The achievements of the seventeenth century brought about a new independence of
scientific inquiry. Francis Bacon warned the experimental philosophers that they
should not be diverted by metaphysical considerations. Though John Locke and
Issac Newton were both devout Christians and had faith in Trinity, they argued for a
‘rational religion’ that was independent of miracles and mysteries contained in the
Bible. These rationalists subscribed to physiotheology, an attempt to explain God’s
natural world rather than seeing him through the Bible. By the early eighteenth
century, deism (based only in belief of God) arose but was soon replaced by
pantheism (belief that God and nature are identical).

Critics of Merton:
Lotte Mulligan has shown that the number of Puritans in the Royal Society was very
small. R. K. Merton’s thesis of English Puritanism has come under scathing attack
from many sides. His evidence from the pre-revolutionary period fails to support his
conclusions. Another critic of Merton is George Becker. He rejects the idea that there
was compatibility between religious and scientific ideas.
Inconclusive debate but it is accepted that reformation had a role to play in the
scientific developments of the period.
Impact of scientific developments on the society:

● According to John medley Brooke, ‘Such was the impact of scientific

revolution that the only landmark with which it could be compared was the rise
of christianity’.
● vital in the creation of modern world
● link between liberty of thought and intellect with democracy
● Science began to occupy a permanent place in European culture and society
● Formation of new conceptions of nature
● Alfred North Whiteland (1925) gives four major headings under which the
influence of science can be placed: 1)general conceptions respecting the
universe, 2) technological applications, 3) professionalism in knowledge, 4)
influence of biological doctrines on motives of conduct.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS

1. Nicolaus Copernicus

- Considered as "Father of Modern Astronomy" Because we go on to see that he

inspired Galileo, Kepler and others.

- Highly opposed to the Ptolemaic (Geocentric) Model which held the view that all the
planets even the sun revolved all around the earth. It was made famous by Claudius
Ptolemy, famous Greek philosopher, geographer, astronomer . His most renowned
work "Almagest" popularized the whole Geocentric Model but some scholars
believed that the geocentric model was also sort of popularized by Greek
philosopher Aristotle,

- HELIOCENTRIC or Copernican Model. He popularized this idea that the planets

revolve around a star i.e., Sun. This was something that he developed without
telescopes. It has been suggested that he mostly used his own naked eyes and
obviously a lot of mathematics has been used because a lot of these early
astronomers were skilled in mathematics as well.

- His posthumous work "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies (or Celestial
Spheres)" published in 1543, after his death. We may probably now wonder why he
didn't publish before that. There's a controversy regarding this as it has been
suggested that Copernicus knew that he would be criticized by the Catholic church,
maybe even accused of heresy because the Church didn't want to accept his theory
and in fact, it was actually banned at one point by the Catholic Church until the
1800s.

-Copernicus also thought that his views weren't exactly accurate, regarding
miscalculation. So this was another reason as to why he didn't publish either as well.
He also mentions that there are 6 planets : Mercury, Venus,Earth, Mars, Jupiter and
Saturn orbit in a perfect circle, However, that proved to be wrong later on, since the
planets move in an elliptical orbit. Interestingly, all these led to the whole Copernican
Revolution and turned everybody on their head about how the universe really was.

2. TYCHO BRAHE (1546-1601)

-Danish Astronomer. He was born into a highly aristocratic, very wealthy family on December
14, 1546.

**not needed Tycho’s father was Otte Brahe, a member of the Royal Court at Denmark (not
needed)

He opposed the theory given by Copernicus and came up with the Tychonic System
that rivalled both the heliocentric and Ptolemaic model ie earth is stationary and at
the centre of the planetary system while the sun and moon revolve around the earth
and the other planets revolve around the sun.
-He did a lot of studies on the stars and planets

-Famous published work, "On the New Star" (1572), Astronomical treatise studying
over 700 stars in Milky Way Galaxy; He also discovered the first Supernova

-Johannes Kepler worked under his tutelage

*In 1576, King Frederick II of Denmark awarded him the fiefdom of Hven, an island
in the Danish Sound, as a site at which to pursue his studies. With generous royal
support, Brahe constructed on Hven a domicile and observatory, which he called
Uraniborg, and developed a range of astronomical instruments of remarkable size
and accuracy. Brahe worked at Uraniborg, pursuing alchemy as well as astronomy,
with the help of a team of assistants, for more than twenty years. But in 1597, after
King Christian IV’s attainment of his majority, led to a decline in Tycho’s funding and
standing, he left Denmark in search of new patronage. In 1599 he settled near
Prague, having been appointed Imperial Mathematician by Emperor Rudolf II;
Johannes Kepler joined him there as an assistant the following year.*

JOHANNES KEPLER

-German Astronomer & Mathematician and like I said earlier, he worked under Tycho
Brahe and in fact, Kepler was very famous for being one of the first to use
telescopes. Also constructed the Keplerian Telescope that used glass lenses.

-In 1601 Kepler became the imperial mathematician to Rudolf II (emperor of the Holy
Roman Empire), succeeding Tycho Brahe. Famous for his Three Laws of Planetary
Motion on how the planets move around the Sun in general and what he particularly
disapproved of the Copernicus Model was that the orbits weren't a perfect circle.

- Kepler' s calculations supported Copernicus' heliocentric theory.• His calculations

also showed that the planets moved in elliptical (oval shaped) orbits, and not perfect
circles, as Ptolemy and Copernicus believed.

-Orbits quicker near the Sun: He also made this observation that the planets near the
sun orbit quicker than those planets that are farther away. These were some of the
ideas that Kepler came up with

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

- Italian astronomer, scientist and mathematician. He’s famous for popularising his
idea of heliocentric model which even by that time wasn’t really known to the
common people since the Catholic Church was trying to prevent people from
knowing about it.

- So, talking about the controversy associated with Galileo : His published work in
1632 called the “Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems” which was
published in 1632 to great popularity, was an account of conversations between a
Copernican scientist, Salviati, an impartial and witty scholar named Sagredo, and a
ponderous Aristotelian named Simplicio.

- It drew a comparison between heliocentric and geocentric models. What put Galileo
into hot water is his mentioning of the fact that heliocentric was correct. In response
to this, the Catholic Church got very angry and accused him of heresy in the 1630s
and was brought before a primary inquisition and he was told to recant what he
basically stated in his work and there’s a famous story where in front of one of the
catholic cardinals, he said that the earth still moves around the sun and that’s the
fact with the rebellious phrase: And yet it moves. He was then put into house arrest
for the rest of his life until he dies in 1642.

- As a scientist he studied inertia with his Law of Falling Bodies theory; conducted
experiments on moving or falling bodies (to see how they accelerate in space)

Francis Bacon

-An English philosopher who was well known for popularising the scientific method.
Originally, it has been called the Baconian method because back in the time at least
in the 17th century people didn't call science, science, they called it natural
philosophy.

-Bacon , like others at the time, created his own careful observations and
experiments and a very important element of all these was the usage of "reason".
There was, he said, a scientific reason to be followed. One shouldn't be depended
on past accounts which were copies and copies, one should ask their own questions
and do their own experiments to find answer to those questions. And this sort of
became the basis for the new scientific method as Bacon laid it out in the
advancement of learning.

-Includes research, constructing a hypothesis, testing it with experiments and

finishes with a conclusion which either prove or disapproves the hypothesis .

-His process of reaching the truth and drawing conclusions from specific reliable
facts or evidence is called inductive reasoning.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

-Considered greatest thinker of “Scientific Revolution”; seen as Father of Modern
Science, Physics, modern calculus who majorly built upon the work of Copernicus
and Galileo.
-He was the most influential scientist of the Scientific Revolution who used math to
prove the existence of gravity, a force that keeps planets in their orbits around the
sun, and also caused objects to fall towards earth.
-Practiced Alchemy that is the quest for secret formulae and practices, which helped
him pull together the findings of his predecessors into mathematical laws for the
findings of the universe and he encapsulated all his findings in his Mathematical
Principles of Natural Philosophy (The Principia, 1687). In his Principia, Newton
propounds the mathematical laws of mechanics, which were valid on earth and
throughout the universe. He held that the force of gravity kept moon in orbit. This
was a direct rejection of Aristotle’s view that earth and heaven (meaning universe)
operated on two different sets of laws.

He quantified the major constructs of mass, inertia, force, velocity and acceleration
and also produced the law of gravitation.

*No need to tell Three laws of motion: first, in the absence of force, motion continues
in a straight line with uniform velocity, second that the force acting on motion
determines the rate of change of momentum (mass times velocity), including friction;
and the third, considered the most important, that every action has an equal and
opposite reaction* no need to tell

The greatest accomplishment of Newton was to weave Kepler’s laws of planetary

motion, Galileo’s law of falling bodies and the concept of inertia. Historians hail his
Principia as the greatest work as regards originality and authority of knowledge in the
whole history of science. It inspired and guided future generations of scientists
because he brought about a fundamental re-conception of the physical universe by
rejecting supernaturalism. (a belief in an otherworldly realm or reality that, in one way or
another, is commonly associated with all forms of religion.)

For Newton, the universe was indeed an all encompassing machine yet it was a
machine still tinged with the mysteries that he continued to decipher and to be fair
that we are still deciphering today.

MAJOR INTERPRETATIONS
There are numerous interpretations to the origins of modern science. Some of the
writers trace the origins primarily to main events occurring in the period: -

· Discovery of the New World

· Renaissance

Discovery of the New World

The conventional assumptions were broken in the 16 th century with the discovery of
the New world and the realisation that earth revolves around the sun. Moreover, the
search for territories and quest for long-distance voyages also created a genuine
desire and interest towards the fields of science and technology, especially the
science of navigation and the skill of cartography.

Renaissance

Many scholars suggest that the search for the ancient Greek texts by the
Renaissance scholars brought European thought to the threshold of modern science.
In the words of Butterfield, “the Renaissance witnessed an upsurge of ability that
was scientific and pre-scientific age”. He further remarked that the scientific attitude
could be seen in the accurate and detailed knowledge of the structure of human
body in works of art. Renaissance contributed to several fields like geometry,
mathematics.

Kenneth Clark suggests that the basis of all the theories was the assumption that
painting was concerned with the accurate representation of the visible world and this
was the scientific basis of Renaissance naturalism. Renaissance scientists carried
out the study of nature through observations and experiments, to understand natural
phenomena. The knowledge of mathematics and geometry was used to ensure
correct proportions in the field of art and architecture. The most significant
contribution of the Renaissance to science was the introduction of the concept of the
universe as an independent entity. However, despite all these significant
developments the Renaissance did not create a scientific revolution as per many
scholars.

Experiments were carried out during the Renaissance, but there was no formulation
of general theories. This could only develop when scientific study was applied to
physics, mechanics and astronomy. These constituted the real scientific
developments. The developments of the Renaissance created skilled artisans and
engineers but they did not create true scientists. The Renaissance was in fact the
work of artists and artisans, not that of scientists. The period up to the sixteenth
century was concerned more with the technological aspects, like the mechanical
clock, microscope, telescope, barometer and air pump which did contribute to the
rise of modern science.

Some scholars like A.C. Crombie and M. Clagett emphasize the progressive aspects
of science. According to them, Galileo and other scientists owed their success to the
intellectuals of the ancient and medieval periods. For them, the Aristotelian views
were not a hindrance; rather they were important factors in the development of
science and deserve credit for this. According to this view, the history of science
takes an evolutionary character. They thought that the Scientific Revolution was not
so unusual or revolutionary as was made out to be. Crombie, in his book Robert
Grosseteste and the Origins of Experimental Science (1953), points out that modern
science owed much of its success to the use of the inductive and experimental
procedures, constituting what is often called the experimental method. They
transformed the Greek geometrical method into experimental science of the modern
world.
However, there are many other alternative approaches explaining the origins of
modern science such as the Marxist, Culturalist and Individualistic and many more
approaches based on different factors.

Marxist Approach

Marxist writers generally argue that the developments of the Scientific Revolution
arose in direct response to the needs of early capitalism, especially trade and
navigation.

Scholars have opposing views on the relationship between the social climate and the
rise of modern science. For some, the rise of science was the product of society and
there was a direct relationship between the two, while some others argue that
scientific development was independent of society in which individual’s qualities
played a decisive role.

Marxist writers like Boris Hessen link the scientific development to the needs of the
bourgeois class. In his work, “The Social and Economic Routes of Newtons
Principia, he suggests that Newton’s work was related to the needs of the English
merchant class”. Marxist scholars argue that the rise of modern science should be
seen in context to the contemporary social change.

As F. Engels wrote in 1894, if society had a technical need, that helps science move
forward and performs the role of more than ten universities. He argued that there
was no place for unique genius in the materialistic interpretation of history. He also
believed science to be a product of social needs.

Edgard Zilsel is also one of the important contributors to the idea that modern
science was the product of changing society. For him, the origin of science should be
recognized as a sociological phenomenon. He gives the example of the period of
transition from feudalism to early capitalism, he relates the emergence of science to
the needs of the capitalist society. He argues that the, in a feudal society, the castles
of knights and rural monasteries were the centres of culture but in the period of early
capitalism towns became the cultural centres. According to him, the spirit of science
could not have developed in the rural setting of feudal knights or clergymen, rather it
emerges only in towns and cities. The introduction of new technology and technical
inventions were related to the demands of production and warfare. In medieval
society, the individual was bound to the traditions of the group to which he belonged.
In early capitalism, economic success depended on the spirit of the enterprises and
competition, something unknown in feudal society. The individualism of the new
society is a presupposition of scientific thinking. The critical scientific spirit could not
have developed without economic competition.

Moreover, tradition and custom ruled feudal society while capitalism is governed by
rationalism. Urban society needed the knowledge of mathematics for keeping
accounts, calculations and to understand the laws of mechanics. So, a capitalist
society provided the necessary condition for the rise of scientific spirit. Machinery
and science could not develop in a civilization based on slave labour. Zilsel’s
sociological interpretation thus emphasizes the three distinct strata of intellectual
activity between 1300 and 1600 in which universities, humanism and labour
contributed to the rise of the scientific spirit.

Christopher Hill in his many articles and books, particularly The Century of
Revolution, reinforced the sociological interpretation of the Scientific Revolution by
placing modern science within the ambit of social history. In Hill’s work science is
treated as a general social phenomenon linked with the rise of Puritanism as
discussed by Raahel and the rise of the bourgeoisie. He included science among
other factors that were responsible for the English Civil War. Christopher Hill
elaborates his argument by citing the examples of Gresham College and Francis
Bacon, the great contributors to the modern science.

According to Hill, the merchants of London established Gresham College to promote

the study of science. Similarly, Francis Bacon emphasized that the development of
science should be based on experiments on a cooperative basis involving different
scientific perspectives working for the common benefit of society. According to Hill,
Bacon’s two works - Advancement of Learning and Novum Organum gave a blue
print to ‘forward looking’ merchants and artisans of the early Stuart period. These
self-taught men tried to come to terms with the new picture of the world provided by
Copernicus and Galileo and increasingly rejected the authority of the traditional
church and the feudal state. The court, the clergy and the universities looked to the
past, accepted authority uncritically and were sceptical of future progress through
new ideas.

For Hill, ‘the civil war was fought between rival schools of astronomy, between
Parliamentarian heliocentrists and Royalist Ptolemaics’. Thus, Hill argues that we
cannot separate a thinker from the social climate.

One of the important contributors to this debate is H.F. Kearney. He argues that
there was no direct connection between economic and scientific developments. The
two phenomenon according to him were not necessarily linked, as there is no valid
body of evidence to suggest that. The revolutionary discoveries in science had no
practical application. The mathematical world of the new science was as abstract in
its own way as the world of Aristotelian metaphysics. However, in his conclusion,
Kearney does not rule out the possibility that social change did have some effect in
making the Scientific Revolution. Social change of this kind, according to Kearney,
could be a decisive factor in the rise of modern science. Most scholars of social
sciences now agree that the rise of modern science was the product of social needs
and historical progress.

Individualistic approach

Scholars, who discount the relationship between social needs and the rise of
science, include A. Koyre, Arthur Koestler, etc. For them each event in the
development of modern science was independent of society and was unrelated to it.
The development of modern science was the product of individual genius. Herbert
Butterfield uses phrases like ‘an epic adventure’or‘a certain dynamic quality’ to
describe the scientific events. For him the Scientific Revolution was ultimately
inexplicable and it could not have been predicted. He believes that history of science
would become imperfect if regarded too exclusively as the history of scientific books.

Alexander Koyre gives credit to the unparalleled insight of individuals. According to

Koyre, it is difficult, rather impossible, to define the Scientific Revolution. For him, its
achievements were based on an admixture of genius, insight, delusion and error. He
thought that scientific developments were more accidental and considered the
Scientific Revolution as almost the personal creation of a single man - Galileo.

Scholars like Arthur Koestler, in his book The Sleepwalkers, also suggested that the
scientific development was essentially a sketch of great individuals whose
achievements were governed by individual qualities rather than the demand of the
society.

Culturalist Approach

Toby Huff presents another interesting view. Without emphasizing religion. Huff
gives a culturist interpretation of the rise of modern science. He argues that till the
fourteenth century, China and the Arab world were far ahead of Europe in the field of
science but in subsequent centuries the situation reversed. For Huff, this was
because of the dramatic cultural differences and the key to European progress was
the legal revolution that emphasized rational study of nature based on criticism. The
Arabs and the Chinese lacked the autonomous legal corporate bodies that were
needed for the free and objective investigation of nature. The establishment of a
large number of universities in Europe encouraged independent learning and free
thought. However, it can be said that it was not the cultural but economic differences
that prevented further progress of the Arabs and the Chinese. The rise of modern
science should be placed against the dramatic shift from feudalism to capitalism that
was taking shape from the sixteenth century according to Toby Huff.

CONCLUSION

No matter how different strands and approaches trace the origins of the modern
science they all agree that the Scientific Revolution marked a triumph of mind in the
European society during the period. In John Milton’s words, “Heaven for thee was no
longer high to know what passes there”.