Why isn't this a real article? There was indeed a Scientific Revolution, spurred by the rediscovery by European thinkers of Greek philosophical traditions. Human 01:00, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- So the revolution was a rediscovery? What makes it a revolution? RSchlafly 01:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- We call the rediscovery the Renaissance. The rediscovery of principles of logical examination of the natural world led to the scientific revolution. I guess I understand why it might not be a nice topic for this site, since the nature of the revolution was the overturning of centuries of religious oppression... and eventually led to naturalistic explanations for many previously mysterious aspects of the world. If one held dear to some of the ideas held in the middle ages, it was a very threatening concept. The only "threat" to religion is when religious dogma refuses to accept scientific advances (cf Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein) rather than incorporate them in an ever more enlightened theology. There will always be an infinite amount of room in our understanding of the universe for God and Faith. Just leave a little room on the side for the things we have actually figured out. Human 01:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- PS, I don't mind if you want a paragraph calling it a "myth" (it's your web site, not mine), but at least describe it well first, k? Human 01:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- It sounds like you subscribe to several myths. Is there something wrong with the description in the first paragraph? RSchlafly 01:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- "It sounds like you subscribe to several myths" - I'll ignore the insulting language.
- "Is there something wrong with the description in the first paragraph?" Yes, it's woefully incomplete. Especially when equal space is given to calling it a myth. How about a brief (succinct) history, say, from Galileo through the industrial revolution that the scientific revolution spawned? Human 02:21, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- Why stop there? There is a long history of science before Galileo. RSchlafly 02:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- Wouldn't that best be covered in History of science, with the scientific revolution as a subset? To quote from Science: Order and Reality (Hicks et al, 1993, A Beka Book, Pensacola Christian College), p. 349 "Almost all of what we know about the physical laws which govern the universe has been discovered by scientists since the middle of the sixteenth century (the 1500s)." (bold and italics in original), and on p. 350, "The nineteenth century was perhaps the era of most rapid advance for science. By the end of that century, most of the great theories we are familiar with today were well formulated." So that is essentially the topic of this article - the scientific advances from the 16th through the 19th century. There is also a nice timeline on pages 350-351 that could be sifted for a brief overview of major discoveries. Human 14:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, that is a good example of the myth described in the article. According to the myth, science started in the mid-1500s. The book's view is very distorted. Great theories like relativity and quantum mechanics came after the period described in the book. RSchlafly 14:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
(dropping indent) OK, if I can't turn to a Christian science text for homeschoolers for clarity when writing on this site, where can I go? I mean, this science text has a separate index for scripture quotations! Human 15:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- My opinion: There can be no doubt that there occurred a considerable change in the way science was being conducted sometime around the 16th century. Whether one calls this a Revolution or a Kuhnian paradigm shift or something else entirely doesn't really matter, but the Scientific Revolution is the traditional term. However, this does not necessarily imply, as RSchlafly says, an assertion that science "started" at that time. Quite the contrary - it was a revolution in science. The scientists of the Scientific Revolution most certainly did not conduct their business in the same way as their medieval predecessors, but they were still very much indebted to them. The article should probably try to reflect this quite complex development and relationship. --AKjeldsen 16:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I am still waiting for a reply to my question: is my Christian Homeschooling science text really "very distorted" and containing "a good example of myth"? And, if so, what texts are not, so I can read the undistorted, non-mythological truth about this? Human 23:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, your text is distorted. It appears to have not even discovered 20th century science yet. RSchlafly 01:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- You're saying that the Pensacola Christian College, of which Beka Books is a ministry, has published (in 1993), an distorted Science textbook for the use of Young Earth Creationist Christian homeschoolers. You understand, you will be quoted on this elsewhere? You didn't answer my second question yet. Human 01:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- No, I don't know who might be quoting me, if anyone. Are there Young Earth Creationist Christian homeschoolers who are waiting for my recommendations? If so, I say to get some real science books, and ignore the YEC stuff. RSchlafly 13:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- To sort of answer your question, I do think there is a tendency for this site to be used by YEC HSers, so, yes, I suppose. As far as what references to use, thank you, I'll see what I can scrounge up that was published recently. Human 14:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
It's hardly a "modern" term...
...unless the 1800s count as "modern." Dpbsmith 06:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- Who used the term in the 1800s? RSchlafly 12:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- Oh, I now see the 1867 quote in the article. I am not sure what to make of it, as I do not have the book. Is it saying that the scientific revolution includes work in the 12th century? The article needs some work. I'll try to get to it later. RSchlafly 13:25, 25 April 2007 (EDT)