Bilimsel Devrim Kavramlaştırması Üzerine Yeni Düşünceler
Reconsidering the Conceptualization of the Scientific Revolution: New Perspectives

Summary/Abstract: Purpose: The objective of the present article is to re-evaluate the Scientific Revolution in light of history of science research conducted especially over the past fifty years in the field of the history of science. A plethora of studies have been carried out on this subject over several decades; nevertheless, the most substantial shortcoming observed in these studies is the disregard for historical scientific data. In contrast, research in the history of science with a particular focus on the Middle Ages, has demonstrated that scientific developments during this period were extensive, contradicting popular assumptions. These findings indicate that the foundations of many scientific advancements currently considered to have emerged in the modern era were in fact established in previous centuries. The present article proposes a re-evaluation of the Scientific Revolution in the context of historical scientific data, with the objective of elucidating this matter and demonstrating that the characterizations attributed to it are predominantly the consequence of biased, erroneous and subjective attitudes. Moreover, the article's objective extends beyond the mere discussion of these points, aiming to instigate a novel discourse on the matter of the “rewriting of history,” a phenomenon that emerged as one of the developments precipitated by the Scientific Revolution. Method: The approach adopted in the composition of the article involved the utilisation of conceptual analysis techniques. To this end, first, a content analysis of the conceptualization of the “Scientific Revolution” was conducted to determine whether the meanings attributed to the concept still maintain their validity today; consequently, significant semantic shifts were identified. In order to justify this finding, the boundaries of the problem were delineated, and care was taken to preserve the historicity of the issue to avoid “whiggism.” In order to achieve this objective, a thorough examination was conducted of the fundamental arguments of the two opposing approaches (rupture and continuity) contending over the subject were scrutinized. In order to ascertain the originality of the achievements highlighted in the Revolution were original or not, examples of scientific success prior to the Revolution were identified, and their decisive roles in the process were demonstrated. In light of the inquiry's findings, it has been determined that extant literature provides substantiation for the continuity approach underpinned by the principle of cumulative progress. Subsequent content analyses of the findings obtained from the conducted literature review were performed, and the findings and claims were verified by demonstrating the successive impacts on the realization of the Scientific Revolution. In addition, the extant literature suggest that the notion of “rupture” is not substantiated by data from the history of science and thus possesses a more speculative character than a factual one. It is acknowledged that “the Scientific Revolution constituted a significant era of development in the history of science.” However, it is demonstrated that this development or progress was not achieved “through revolutionsthat is, through ruptures-” as claimed, but through “cumulative-that is, through continuity.” Findings: The conceptualization of the Scientific Revolution is characterised by a significant degree of polysemy. Consequently, a plethora of debates have emerged and persist in both favor of and against it. It has been observed that the scientists and thinkers participating in these debates have over time, been divided into two dominant groups. While one group understands the Revolution as a radical rupture from the established scientific tradition, the other group insists that the Revolution followed a linear course of development, arguing that the term signifies cumulative progress. In this context, the only point upon which scientists and thinkers from both groups agree is the acceptance that a significant, fundamental, and qualitative change occurred in scientific activity with the Revolution, and that progress was realized as a result of such a change. Conversely, the manner in which this transformation is to be actualised remains the most contentious issue within the Revolution. Conclusion: Drawing upon the findings of research in the field of history of science research, this article demonstrates that science is an exceptional activity with a progressive nature; that the Scientific Revolution is one of the most significant periods in the history of science, but not its sole and unique examplar; and that the significant scientific advances achieved in the Middle Ages have been ignored. It has been demonstrated that this oversight has resulted in the predominance of the notion that “science is a product of the modern age” has come to the fore in the world of thought, leading to the assumption that the Revolution occurred through a radical rupture; however, contrary to what is thought, development occurred through cumulative progress. Additionally, it is noted that although studies on the Scientific Revolution occupy a wide place in contemporary history of science literature, a sufficient literature has not formed in our country due to the limited nature of research in this field. For these reasons, it is expected that the article will fill a significant gap and initiate a process of discussion on the Scientific Revolution.

• Details
• Contents