CHAPTER 8

The Rise of Modern Science

The seventeenth century witnessed a great change in man’s

perception of the universe. It created a new intellectual climate as
the centuries-old earth-centered concept of the universe gave way
to a new picture in which the earth was seen only as one of the
many planets orbiting the sun. It was discovered that sun itself was
one among millions of stars. It resulted in the demystification of
the universe and by the second half of the seventeenth century, a
mechanistic view of the world was created. With it the intellectual
crisis in Europe was resolved. It led to a re-thinking of moral and
religious matters as well as man’s ideas on nature. The process, by
which this new view of the universe and the knowledge of science
came to be established, is termed as the Scientific Revolution.
The origins of modern science can be seen in the process of
constant interaction between man and nature. By the seventeenth
century, scientific learning and investigation began to increase
dramatically. Attention was paid to an examination and under­
standing of the physical realm.The subsequent creation of scientific
method proved crucial to the evolution of science in the modern
world. The rise of science, which was called natural philosophy in
those days, was associated with spectacular intellectual triumph in
mathematics, astronomy and physics. Observation of natural
phenomenon, formulation of laws or principles on the basis of
experiment and conclusion were the chief features of the scientific
revolution.The scientific and intellectual changes of the seventeenth
century were vital in the creation of the modern world.
According to J.D. Bernal, the period of Scientific Revolution
can be divided into three phases. The first was the phase of
Copernicus when the geocentric view of the universe was replaced
by the heliocentric concept. In the second phase a scientific basis
 476 Europe in Transition

was provided to this view by thinkers like Tycho Brahe, Kepler and
Galileo. The third phase was the period of Isaac Newton and Rene
Descartes in which the scientific societies were formed and science
was becoming an institutional part of European society.

O r ig in s

The beginning of science goes back to the ancient world. The

Greeks had shaped knowledge of science for a very long time. The
view of Aristotle in the field of physics, Ptolemy in astronomy and
Galen in medicine had dominated European thought for centuries.
In the medieval period, theologians studied the world, especially
astronomy, based on the conclusions of the ancient Greeks. Aristotle
believed that all heavy bodies fall toward the centre of the universe
and rested there unless propelled by a mover in some other direction.
Earth was seen at the centre of the universe. This explanation
of the universe created difficulties in understanding natural
phenomena. In the fourteenth century some scientists tried to
provide a new explanation to the problem of motion by suggesting
that a moving body possessed impetus, which keeps it in motion.
Another ancient scholar, Ptolemy held that a concentric series of
transparent crystalline spheres revolved in an ascending order of
purity around man’s corruptible earth. The moon, the sun, the
planets and the fixed stars and the primum mobile (the outermost
sphere that drove the entire system) revolved in perfect circles.
Beyond this lay the purest region where heaven existed. Even in
the field of life sciences, Galen’s theories were based on incorrect
information of the human anatomy. He was the most famous Greek
physician after Hippocrates and lived in the second century A D .
He was one of the first to show the existence of muscles and the
importance of the spinal cord. He wrote many treatises, mostly on
medicine. Galen’s most famous work was his book On Anatomical
Preparations that remained a standard text for over fourteen
centuries. He based his work on animal anatomy which when
applied to the human context proved wrong. Galen believed that
the liver was an extremely important part as all the veins entered it-
He argued that it was the liver from where one kind of blood ran
 The Rise of Modern Science A ll

through the veins to all parts of the body supplying nutrition, while
a different type of blood, mixed with a sort of spirituous substance
called pneuma, flowed out through arteries, which kept men alive.
AH these ideas had survived the Middle Ages with some changes.
Historians no longer believe that medieval Europe was a period of
scientific darkness. Medieval scholars continued the study of
astronomy and medicine. They had succeeded in preserving and
continuing the knowledge of Greek science while adding something
of their own. The Europeans of the middle ages acquired knowledge
of mathematics through the Arabs. They also dwelt on Platonic
speculations and tried to develop the ideas of Hippocrates that
every disease had a natural cause. Aristotle’s system came under
serious attack in the medieval period from a number of intellectuals.
In the mid-fifteenth century, a famous theologian, Nicholas of Cusa,
argued that the universe was infinite and uniform both in its
substance and in the laws governing it. However, he could not
develop a coherent alternative system of cosmology. In this period,
the focus was on assimilation of knowledge rather than experi­
mentation. It was a period of intellectual activities primarily in the
universities of Europe but the study of natural science was largely
based on the works of ancient Greeks.
Another factor, which engaged the intellectual interest in the
late medieval period, was ‘magic’.There were various sides to magical
enquiry. Alchemy was seen as a secret formula of nature while the
theory of atomism suggested that all matter was made up of tiny
particles whose composition could be changed. A famous alchemist,
Paracelsus, propounded his theory of medicine that suggested that
diseases were separate entities with lives of their own. Astrology
was another field that attracted the attention of medieval scholars.
They claimed that the natural phenomena were understandable
and predictable if the planetary movements were properly
interpreted. Hermeticism was a school of thought that believed
that all knowledge existed in the mysterious and philosophical
writings that could be obtained through right approach and
intelligence. With it a complete insight into the structure of the
universe could be obtained. Cabala was a system of Jewish thought
suggesting that the key to the universe consisted of magical
480 Europe in Transition

and experiment are the only path to certainty. Piero della Francesca,
an intellectual painter, revealed a great passion for geometry and
planned all his works on mathematical principles. Different
historians have emphasized different aspects of the Renaissance as
contributors to modern science. While Clagett believes that the
spatial world of the seventeenth century had its origin in the new
departures in perspective that came about as a result of Brunelleschi s
work, Randall considers the logic school of Italian universities as
the ‘House of Novelty’ while Koyre regards Platonic tradition as
the decisive factor in the rise of science. According to Koenigsberger,
the Italian artists in the fifteenth century developed the theory
and technique of linear perspective (the presentation of reality as it
appears to the eye from one specific point of view) which allowed
more penetrating presentation of reality. Almost all the great artists
of the fifteenth and early-sixteenth centuries attempted to in­
corporate mathematical principles and mathematical harmony in
their paintings, with realistic perspective as a specific goal. Artists
like Signorelli; Bramante, Michelangelo and Raphael were all deeply
interested in mathematics and were aware that art is subject to
laws. The application of geometry to the theory of perspective and
the art of representing three-dimensional space were all the result
of prolonged experiments and intelligent use of the knowledge of
geometry. Herbert Butterfield thinks that the scientific attitude to
art can be seen in the accurate and detailed knowledge of the
structure of the human body. A number of anatomists at Padua
University created their own school which became famous for its
work in dissections and direct investigation into nature. In medicine,
Belgian physician Andreas Vesalius dissected cadavers and
discovered many secrets of the human anatomy. Many leading
contributors to the scientific revolution received training in methods
of experiments and observation at this centre. Renaissance scientists
carried out the study of nature through observations and experi­
ments, to understand natural phenomena. The knowledge of mathe­
matics and geometry was used to ensure correct proportions in the
field of art and architecture.
In the sixteenth century, European society needed the skills and
services of scientists.The practical needs of every city state consisted
 The Rise o f Modern Science 481

of fortification of towns, greater utilization of minerals and com­

mercial gains, systematization of accounts, accurate preparation of
maps, and improvements in artillery. Besides, greater sea voyages
required more knowledge of navigation and the skill of cartography.
The most significant contribution of the Renaissance to science
was the introduction of the concept of the universe as an indepen­
dent entity. However, despite all these significant developments
the Renaissance did not create a scientific revolution.
The rise of modern science in the seventeenth century was a
product of intellectual growth in which the observation of nature
led to the formulation of laws based on experiments. 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 develop­
ments 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 tech­
nological aspects, like the mechanical clock, microscope, tele­
scope, barometer and air pump which did contribute to the rise of
modern science.

S o c ia l C o n t e x t o f M o d er n S c ie n c e

There are alternative approaches explaining the origins of modern

science. 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. R. Hooylass argues
that the process of discovery started by the Portuguese navigators
culminated in the discovery of the New World. The knowledge of
new lands in Asia, Africa and America, their plants, animals and
people, created a fresh interest in the natural world. He rejects the
notion that the progress and achievements in the field of science
was confined to the domain of science alone. He insists that in
order to understand the rise of modern science, one needs to
examine factors which created favourable climate for it ranging
 482 Europe in Transition

from theological issues to the rise of new social classes. 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.
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 points out to the wider changes in the world that
affect man’s thinking or even alter those conditions under which
this thinking takes place. He emphasizes the part played by tech­
nology in the development of scientific movement. 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. Arthur
Koestler, in his book The Sleepwalkers, suggests 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.
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
 The Rise of Modern Science 483

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 o f 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. The philosophers of the West created a part
of the qualitative aspect of this method in the thirteenth century.
They transformed the Greek geometrical method into experimental
science of the modern world. Charles Webster also emphasizes the
vast scope of science and says that by ignoring religious, political,
economic and intellectual movements from the study of science,
the scope of science could become extremely limited. This would
drastically reduce the scope of history.
Marxist writers have provided social interpretation to explain
the development of modern science. Boris Hessen links the
scientific development to the needs of the bourgeois class. In his
work. The Social a n d 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 tliat there was no place for unique genius
in the materialistic interpretation of histoiy. He also believed science
to be a product of social needs. Edgard Zilsel is 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. In Europe, according to Zilsel, the
beginning of science was greatly influenced by the achievements
of ancient mathematicians and astronomers and medieval Arabic
physicians. Illustrating this point 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 capitaUst society. He argues
that the emergence of early capitalism was connected with a change
in both the setting and the bearers of culture. In a feudal society,
the castles of knights and rural monasteries were the centres of
484 Europe in Transition

culture. In the period of early capitalism towns became the cultural

centres. The spirit of science could not have developed in the rural
setting of feudal Icnights 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. The development of most rational of sciences, i.e.
mathematics, is closely related to the advancement of rationality in
a society. 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.
A.R. Hall also emphasizes the contribution of diverse individuals
to the rise of modern science during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. He believes that this great diversity of men who
contributed to the growth of scientific literature, were essentially
professionals, including amongst them university teachers,
professors of mathematics, anatomy and medicine, men of applied
mathematics, various practitioners such as physicians, surveyors,
mariners, engineers, opticians, instrument makers and many others.
Although there was wide divergence in their social origin and
intellectual attainments, yet they held positions in the scientific
hierarchy. They all contributed to the development of science.
Christopher Hill in his many articles and books, particularly The
Century o f Revolution, reinforced the sociological interpretation of
the Scientific Revolution by placing modern science within the
 The Rise of Modern Science 485

ambit of social history. In Hill’s work science is treated as a general

social phenomenon linked with the rise of Puritanism 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 HiU, 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 un­
critically and were skeptical of future progress through new ideas.
For Hill, ‘the civil war was fought between rival schools of
astronomy, between Parliamentarian heliocentrists and Royalist
Ptolemaics’(Ty^^ Century o f Revolution). Hill contends, that in 1628,
Harvey used anatomical analogies to support theories of absolute
monarchy. In his text, Harvey compared the heart to a prince in
the commonwealth and in an elaborate dedication oideM otu Cordis
{Anatomica deM otu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus) to Charles I,
the English ruler; he compared the king with the heart. But in his
second letter written in 1649 to Riolan after Charles’ execution,
according to Hill, Harvey dethroned the heart and spoke no more
of the sovereignty of heart but the prerogative and antiquity of
blood. This ‘somersault’ in Harvey’s political ideas was due to the
changing political scenario. Thus, Hill argues that we cannot
separate a thinker from the social climate - a view that is countered
by scholars like W. Pagel and G. Whitteridge.
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 rise of Commercial Revolution
486 Europe in Transition

in the sixteenth century and the subsequent Scientific Revolution

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 meta­
physics. However, in his conclusion, Kearney does not rule out the
possibility that social change did have some effect in making the
Scientific Revolution. In the seventeenth century, new wealth was
acquired by a greater number of scholars who could afford more
leisure than before. More men attended the universities than at
any time before, which meant that a greater number of men were
receiving training in abstract thought, particularly mathematics.
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.

M a jo r D e v e l o p m e n t s

The scientific developments after the Renaissance may be divided

into two categories: (a) micro cosmological and (b) cosmological.
The micro-cosmological field consisted of different branches
of medical science such as anatomy, physiology, pharmacology,
pathology, etc. In the field of biology, Conrad Gesnar wrote
a voluminous work. History o f Animals, while Otto Brunfels,
Jeromebock and Leonard Fuchs made contributions to the field of
modern botany. Guillaume de Rondolet produced an excellent
account of marine life.The chemists also contributed in many ways
to the new ideas. They included skin diseases (Roilau 1648, Willis
1670), rickets (Glisson 1650), apoplexy (Wepfer 1658), diabetes
(Willis 1670), gout (Sydenham 1683), and tuberculosis (Morton
1689). O f all these branches, the best founded was anatomy. It
studied the arrangements of bones, muscles and organs. The same
period also saw greater and better use of chemical remedies and of
exotic drugs. Modem physiology is usually associated with Harvey,
who discovered the circulation of blood. It was published in 1628.
It was an extremely important discovery but it remained unknown
 The Rise of Modern Science 487

for quite some time. It was a major contribution in the field of

science and was based on the scientific method as emphasized by
most scientists. Vesalius wrote The Structure o f Human which
was published in 1543. However, it was essentially based on the
physiological theories of the Greek scholars, Hippocrates and Galen.
Eustachi made significant studies of the ear and throat and the
tube connecting the throat with the middle ear. He also made
important observations on the vocal cords. However, it was
Mdpighe, who was able to show the flow of blood -with the help of
a microscope and turned belief into fact. Stephen Hales carried
out important studies on blood pressure in animals using hydrostatic
apparatus. A more advanced view of mechanical physiology was
provided by Albecht von Haller, who showed that the body acted
as a kind of filter by which the appropriate nutritive particles were
either added to the blood stream or leached from it whenever
necessary. On the basis of this, he proved the function of the kidneys.
Yet, one can say that there were hardly any revolutionary changes
in the fields of biology and chemistry as neither of these subjects
had developed rational methods. Though biology as a subject was
witnessing new trends, chemistry emerged as a part of modem
science much later. Robert Boyle (1627—91) became the leading
experimentalist and theorist in the field of chemistry but the revo­
lutionary developments in the subject began through the works of
Lavoisier in the eighteenth century. The discoveries and obser­
vations of diseases and remedies checked the mortality rate in
Europe and prepared the ground for the rise of medical science.
In the field of cosmology (pertaining to the theories of the origin,
creation and evolution of the universe), important contributions
were made in the sixteenth century, creating an intellectual climate
for subsequent scientific developments. Vieta had developed algebra
and trigonometry which speeded up calculations and contributed
to the field of mathematics. In 1568, Stevin introduced the decimal
system, which was represented in fractions. It is common knowledge
that Europeans had immensely gained from the mathematical
knowledge of the Arabs. In 1614, Napier introduced logarithms
that facilitated the work of mathematicians and made difficult
calculations much easier. It was the new arithmetic based on Arab
 488 Europe in Transition

notations, which helped in the adoption of new Icnowledge in the

field of commerce and industry. Together with double-entry
bookkeeping, it transformed the commercial computations and
methods. The solution of the cubic and quartic equation, gave great
impetus to the scientific studies.
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) made one of the earliest
breakthroughs in the field of modern science leading to the
Scientific Revolution. His actual name was Niklas Kopprnigk and
he was born in what is now north-central Poland. His father was a
copper dealer but at the age of ten he lost his parents. His uncle,
Lucas Waczenrode became his guardian and this proved to be the
turning point in his career. Lucas was a great scholar and had
received a doctorate of canon law from the University of Bologna.
Realizing the importance of learning and with a sufficient financial
backing, Nicolas could pursue his academic career in canon law,
astronomy and mathematics, as well as philosophy, Roman law,
medicine and Greek in the universities of Bologna and Padua. His
first love was astronomy. He was appointed as a canon at Frauenburg
Cathedral. He revealed a keen intellectual interest and came in
contact with the Humanist ideas of Italy. Part of an intellectual
elite, he was requested by Pope Gregory XIII to prepare a reformed
calendar for the church. That was produced in 1582. The old
calendar called the Julian calendar, was not very accurate and had
existed for the last fourteen centuries. It counted century years as
leap years and thus added extra days that pushed Easter further
away from its normal occurrence in late March. It was necessary to
reform the calendar that led Copernicus to carry out a thorough
study of the universe. He was a known mathematician and did not
agree with the planetary movements that were accepted since the
time of Ptolemy. It was Ptolemy who had suggested that the planets
and the sun were attached to transparent crystalline spheres and
they revolved round the earth. Copernicus was influenced by new
Platonic ideas and he argued that the sun was the most splendid
celestial body and was the centre of a harmonious universe. This
work. On the Revolutions o f the Heavily Bodies^-ds published in 1543
and created a great stir in the courts of Europe. It overthrew the
Aristotelian system of the universe which had existed for centuries
 The Rise of Modern Science 489

together. Although the planetary system of Copernicus was no less

simple than that of Ptolemy, it demolished the traditional views
concerning the world. It was nothing less than an intellectual
revolution but the impact of the Copernicus theory was felt much
later. It was the great Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601)
who made a major contribution by plotting the paths of the moon
and planets every night but the only theory with which he came
out was a compromise between the Ptolemaic and Copernicun
systems. He remained unconvinced that the earth moved around
sun as suggested by Copernicus. At the same time, Tycho Brahe
had produced a rich data on universe through his painstaking
observation and his elaborate and costly instruments that he had

T h e C opernican System based on the idea that the Sun and not
the E arth was at the centre o f solar system.
490 E u r o p e in T r a n s it io n

himself devised. He spotted a ‘new star’or nova and later a comet.

It was seen as by the superstitious people as a bad sign. Aristotle
had earlier explained them as atmospheric events taking place
within the realm of the earth, between the earth and the moon.
Tycho proved through his calculations that the comet came from
the realm beyond moon and followed an elliptical path. His
observations defied to certain extent the prevalent notions of heaven
and earth. It was his German disciple Johannes Kepler, who
provided solutions to the problems in the field of astronomy.
Johannes Kepler is considered one of the chief contributors to
the Scientific Revolution. He strongly believed in the value of
mathematics to determine the movements of the planets. He was
convinced by Copernicus’s conclusion confirming the heliocentric
theor}' (sun-centered), which had been partially supported by Tycho
Brahe also. Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion not only gave

jolianncs Kepler
 The Rise o f Modem Science 491

substance to Copernicus’s speculation of the earth’s movements

around the sun but it also opened a new chapter in the study of
astronomy. The first law stated that the planets moved round the
sun in an elliptical orbit. Copernicus and others accepted it but
could not prove it with mathematical precision. According to the
second law, a line always sweeps across the same area in any given
time from a planet to the sun. When a planet moves farther from
the sun, its speed also decreases.This destroyed the traditional view
on the motion of heavenly bodies. The third law took a long time
to be formulated and concerned an entirely different area. It deals
with the relationship of the movements among the planets. It stated
that the square of the time taken by a planet to complete its orbit
bears a constant ratio to the cube of its mean distance from the
sun. This law of Kepler reflects his mathematical skill and was an
important discovery. However, it did not have great immediate
impact and it was Newton who used it in his construction of a new
system of the heavens. Kepler’s other achievement was the
publication of Rudolf ne Tables in 1627, named after his patron
Emperor Rudolf II. He combined the observations of planetary
positions observed by Brahe with his theories of planetary motion
which made it possible to predict the movements of celestial bodies
more accurately than before and was of great help to navigators.
Although the followers of Ptolemaic cosmology continued to
oppose these new ideas, they lost support rapidly. The new theory
of planetary motion gradually gained acceptability.
One of the prominent scientists of that period was Galileo
Galilei. He was a contemporary of Kepler. He perceived a con­
nection between the earth and planetary motions. His chief
contribution was in the field of astronomy, which was based on his
study of mathematics and physics. He created a new understanding
of the universe and received widespread attention. He is regarded
as one of the first modern scientists because of his concern for
technique, argument and evidence. Galileo’s major success lies in
his totd rejection of the Aristotelian concept. Aristotle believed
that the commonly noted characteristics of an object - its com­
position, quality, colour, smell and value - had major relevance to
the problem of its motion in space. Galileo rejected this concept
 492 Europe in Transition

and instead argued that only those qualities, which were measurable,
e.g. mass, weight, speed and acceleration, could form the elements
of the science of mechanics. Aristotle held that a body is naturally
at rest and needs to be pushed constantly to keep moving. This
view dominated the study of dynamics. Kepler believed that some
steady force emanated from the sun, which maintained the motion
of the planets. Galileo developed a new explanation of physical
laws. He himself built a telescope to study the heavenly bodies. He
devised pendulums rolling down inclined surfaces to verify his
theories and finally arrived at a new principle of inertia. Galileo’s
contribution not only undermined the long-held views of Aristotle
but it gave a new scope to the field of physics as he proved through
his experiments that only mathematical language could explain the
principles of nature.
In 1610, in his publication Galileo stated that Jupiter had
satellites and that the moon has mountains on its surface. Both
these discoveries gave further jolt to the traditional beliefs that
held that the earth is changing and imperfect while the heavens
are unchangeable. It showed that other planets had moons just like
the earth and that Jupiter had four larger moons, that there was a
ring around Saturn and the dark patch on the sun called the ‘sun
spots’often causing electrical disturbances on heavenly bodies. He
even calculated the height of mountains on the moon by using
geometric techniques. In all these cases, Galileo attempted to
establish that the earth was like any other planet and was part of a
uniform universe. Later he became famous for creating new grounds
in the study of astronomy and for confirming the views of
Copernicus, which had caused major shocks in the academic circles
of Europe. Although Galileo established himself as a great scientist,
he stood on dangerous ground. He was severely criticized by the
religious and academic men for his views on the moon and rotation
of the earth. Staunch religious critics argued that in the Bible, Joshua
made the sun stand still. Galileo reacted with scorn saying that
observations and proofs carried greater weight than beliefs. He
suggested that one should begin with a sense experience rather
than the authority of the scriptures. The intense rivalry between
Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church began to take
 The Rise of Modern Science 493

serious note of what was being said about religion. Galileo’s sarcastic
comments on religious beliefs greatly antagonized the Jesuits
and Dominicans. After his publication of Letters or Sunspots, he
came under attack of religious authorities. He countered this by
questioning the claims of biblical authority to decide matters of
astronomy. This implied not only a demand for the separation of
theology from science but an evaluation of the work of theologians.
It was a direct challenge and the church took action against him in
1616. The Inquisition forbade him to teach the heretical doctrine
which stated that the earth moves round the sun. In 1623, he
published a masterpiece in Italian language, Dialogue in the Two
Great World Systems. It was written in Italian rather than in Latin
because he wanted his work to reach the widest possible audience.
This was perhaps the most important work for popularizing the
Copernican theory. Galileo was tried for heresy in 1633 though
he was given a light sentence of house arrest on the personal
intervention of Pope Urban VII. Despite his persecution by the
church his works were widely read and discussed in the scientific
societies that were flourishing at that time.
It was Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who brought the Scientific
Revolution to its logical culmination after the steady progress made
by earlier contributors like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and
Descartes. Newton was a versatile scientist who made great con­
tributions in the field of mathematics, physics, astronomy and optics.
Newton broke the dichotomy between Bacon and Descartes’s
approach to modern science by uniting laboratory experiments with
mathematics. He was the true genius and the greatest scientist,
although he had many unattractive traits of personality. Isaac was
prematurely born on 25 December 1642. His father died before
his birth and he was handed over to his grandmother’s care. He
remained a lonely child who kept himself busy making gadgets.
He showed general curiosity in the natural world and had
fascination for alchemy. His uncle was a member ofTrinity College,
Cambridge University. He was instrumental in sending Newton
there in 1660 although he was forced to leave Cambridge in 1665
for his home farm in Lincolnshire because of an outbreak of bubonic
plague. This proved to be the most fruitflil period of his life as he
 494 Europe i?i Transition

Isaac Newton

developed keen interest in mathematics and scientific experiment­

ations. He laid foundations of modern calculus, that revolution­
ized the method to handle complicated equations.
Newton’s greatest achievement was his formulation of the laws
of universal gravitation, expressed in his monumental work in Latin
- Pruicipia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy) (1687). It was written to refute the much-admired
French school, the Cartesian approach to science as propounded
by Descartes. While rejecting Descartes’s emphasis on the powers
of the mind or deductive approach, Newton relied on mathematics
to prove his experiments, a branch of science, which even Descartes
also stressed. 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. Most
crucial of his findings was the solution to the problem of motion,
which had engrossed the attention of thinkers of material
philosophy since ancient times. Newton explained his system in
 The Rise o f Modern Science 495

three laws: 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.
These laws were explained through the concepts of mass force in
relation to velocity, inertia and acceleration. These laws together
with the law of gravitation became the universal tools applicable to
the planets as well as the earth. The structure of the solar system
was now comprehensible through the laws of matter and motion.
Newtons fame rests on his fundamental work on light through
optical experiments and the invention of the infinitesimal calculus
which was a mathematical procedure specifically used to calculate
the rates of change in motion. He was the first to distinguish
between the mass and the weight of an object. His contribution to
dynamics and explanation of tidal waves related to lunar movements
and his work of light Opticks (1704) made him a celebrity. Till
then, people assumed that white light was the absence of colours.
Using a prism, Newton successfully revealed that light could be
separated into different colours. He also reconstructed white light
by combining these colours.
The application of mathematics to the treatment of mechanical
problems represented the greatest achievement of the seventeenth-
century science, which created a mechanized picture of the world.
At the same time, like many earlier scientists, Newton propounded
the concept of absolute infinite space in theological terms, which
was fundamental to his cosmology. He stated that space existed
eternally and was not created, while the existence of matter in space
was contingent on God’s will and was the arena of divine activity.
The greatest accomplishment of Newton was to weave Kepler’s
laws of planatery motion, Galileo’s law of falling bodies and the
concept of inertia, Descartes’views of science and his own concept
of gravitation into a single mathematical-physical system. Many
scientists like Christian Huygens (1629-95), Christopher Wren
(1632-1723) and Edmond Halley (1656-1742) continued to build
on Newton’s work to come up with a Mathematical formula that
accounted for a circular orbit around the sun. In the twentieth
496 Europe in Transition

century, the great scientist Albert Einstein resolved many of the

queries that were left unresolved by Newton’s physics.
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 supematuralism.The long controversy
of the seventeenth-century over the relative superiority of ancient
and modern writers, which was well brought out in one of the
famous poems The Battle o f the Books by Jonathan Swift (1710),
ended in favour of modern thinkers and this was the triumph of
Newton.
Newton’s views gained ground when he proved that there is
celestial mechanics like the one that operates on earth. He became
an idol in his own time. The educated middle class and the gentry
openly acclaimed his achievements. In 1703, he became the
President of the Royal Society and he was the first scientist to be
knighted in 1705. When he died in 1727, he received a hero’s burial
in Westminster Abbey. The famous French philosopher, Voltaire,
when he visited England was amazed to see the respect in the hearts
of Englishmen for a mathematician who was treated like a king.

T h e F o r m u l a t io n o f S c iE N T in c M e t h o d

The creation of a new scientific method played an important part

in promoting modern science in European society, particularly in
England.Two thinkers - Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes - made
major contributions by highlighting the form of scientific study
which should be adopted to promote scientific learning. The two
great thinkers suggested contrasting methods of scientific studies.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was born in London where his
father Nicholas Bacon held the position of Lord Keeper of the
Great Seal to C^een Elizabeth. Francis Bacon possessed one of
the finest intellects and exhibited an inquiring mind. In the three
years Bacon spent at Trinity College, he developed a strong con­
tempt for the narrow medieval university learning of the day and
began to plan his great philosophical work. When it came out, it
 The Rise of Modern Science 497

made him famous and immortal. Although Francis had lived in

the atmosphere of the court, he never neglected his academic
interests. He was advised by his father to enter the field of diplomacy
and went to France in 1576 and was placed under the care of Sir
Paulet, the British Ambassador in Paris.Three years later his father
died, and he was forced to return to London. There he studied
law and qualified as a barrister and in 1584 entered the British
parliament. After Elizabeth’s death, he rapidly scaled political
heights. In 1613, he became Attorney-General and in 1618 he
became the Lord Chancellor and Baron Verulem.The successes in
his political career never came in the way of his intellectual pursuits.
He was not a scientist by profession but his writings paved the way
for scientific literature of an extraordinary quality. He had been
publishing essays since the beginning of his career and in 1605 he
produced one of the most remarkable academic works, Profcience
ajid Advancement in Learning. It examined the state of existing
knowledge and criticized the errors and absurdities of his times. In
1620, his famous work. N o vu m Organum (N ew Logic), was
published. By 1621, he had reached the pinnacle of glory and
success. The Great Instauration and N ew Atlantis of Francis Bacon
was the new philosophy that contained the seeds of scientific
method. In this, he claimed to have provided an outline of
comprehensive encyclopaedia of natural philosophy. By instauration
Bacon meant a recovery of unknown wisdom that could be procured
through an entirely new scientific method. He advocated the
advancement of learning through cooperative effort and empirical
experiments for useful knowledge and the betterment of human
life. He is regarded as one of the pioneers of the scientific method
- the method of inductive reasoning from observations and
verification by experiments (Stuart Andrews). After 1621 Bacons
political career came to a sudden ruin as accusations of receiving
bribes were established against him and he was removed from his
official post. He faced severe financial hardship but continued his
primary interest in vmting. He became famous through his powerful
works and created a special name for himself in the world of science.
The Royal Society of London, which was founded in 1660 to
promote the natural knowledge of science, was dedicated to him.
498 Europe in Transition

Another famous personality associated with the world of science

was the French philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650), who
spent most his time in the Netherlands. Like Bacon he believed
that aU past knowledge should be discarded and one should begin
afresh with every new problem. However, there is a vast difference
between the two in their approach to science and they formulated
two different methods for its study. For Bacon, it was empiricism
or the study of science based on experiments. He himself pro­
pounded the method of inductive science. Descartes, on the other
hand, was a rationalist and an advocate of mathematics as an
instrument of modern science. In his Discourse o f Method (1637),
he emphasized that nothing should be accepted as truth and
everything should be doubted till it is proved through deductive
logic. His principle of doubt undermined the traditional as­
sumptions. He made rationality the point of departure in his
philosophical exercise. He reconstructed the universe on the basis
of speculation that differed in everyway from the universe created
by the Greeks. He believed that natural processes often consisted
o f such small parts that they could elude our senses and so
everything could not be empirically verified. He deducted two
principles: (a) since the idea of perfection was by man, an assuredly
imperfect being, the idea may have come from a perfect being, i.e.
God. Therefore, God exists; and (b) since the mind cannot be
doubted but the body and the material world can be, the two must
be radically different. From this second principle followed an
absolute dualism between mind and matter. This concept played
an influential role in European scientific and political thought.
It meant the world was a pure mechanism, governed by
its own physical laws and without any intervention of God. God
was like a watchmaker who stopped interfering in its daily fun­
ctioning once the watch was created. Thus, Descartes created a
philosophy of dualism, maintaining a sharp distinction between
the body and the soul. God created only these two kinds of reality:
mind belonged to man alone while all else was matter. He argued
that beyond man, physical laws governed all forms of existence,
both organic and inorganic. It meant that the entire universe could
be studied objectively without the help of theology or appeals
 The Rise o f Modern Science 499

to the occult. He believed that the pursuit of science should be

dispassionate. He also believed that activity of the mind was the
vital element in the search for truth. In Meditations, Descartes cited
the personal crisis that made him doubt everything except the
existence of God and his own capacity to think. In what came to
be known as ‘Cartesian Dualism’, Descartes suggested that while
humans are detached from the world yet they can be objective
observers of the world.The real radical aspect of Descartes’thought
was the changing role of God from being an active controller of
the world to the guarantor of Knowledge. Many alleged that he
encouraged atheism but he remained a faithful Roman Catholic
and accepted the existence of God.
Descartes contributed in other areas as well. In physics, he made
a distinction between mass and weight while in mathematics he
applied for the first time algebraic notations and methods. He
developed a liking for mathematics because of ‘its certainty of
proof and the evidence of its reasoning’. His most important work
was on geometry that laid foundations of anal)rtical geometry. He
showed that geometric problems could be put into algebraic forms.
In this way he introduced a system that could solve problems of
space by numerical calculations based on algebraic and arithmetical
methods.
The followers of Descartes were known as Cartesians, who
showed greater orientation towards mathematics and philosophical
speculations that comprised of his contemporaries as well as his
immediate successors. They include his friend and disciple in
Holland, Henri de Roy or Regius (following Descartes in physics
and the derivative sciences but departing from his views in
metaphysics), Johann Clauberg in Germany, Malebranche, Simon
Foucher, Rohault, Claude Clerselier and Pierre-Sylvain Regis in
France. They carried out more or less self-conscious efforts to supply
what they found lacking in Descartes s work on human knowledge,
each providing his own explanation, often disagreeing with each
other. The Cartesian view of mechanistic physics was based on the
views of Descartes, as presented in his Principia Philosophica. He
argued that matter consist of myriads of tiny particles or corpuscles
which fill the universe. These particles, which God had provided
 500 Europe in Transition

are in a state of constant motion. He considered the universe to be

full of continuously rotating particles and totally rejected the idea
of a vacuum. At the centre of each vortex is a sun and it is the
motion of these infinite sum of vortices that carried the planets
and other heavenly bodies through space. He claimed also to have
deduced the properties of the whole universe using similar mech­
anical principles that were involved in the design of machines.
The mechanical philosophy of Descartes not only made
ontological claims (metaphysics concerned with the nature of
existence) about the world and the things that exist on it but also
epistemological claims (theory of knowledge) of what constituted
real knowledge. It insisted that an explanation of physical process
has to be provided in mechanical terms. He thereby rejected
Aristotalian views, the occults and the magicians. The mechanical
presentation of the world meant that all natural bodies consist of
nothing but particles of matter acting upon each other that comprise
our sensory organs. Later, numerous other views developed within
the Cartesians, debating whether movement was in a vacuum or in
2.planum (a plane or flat surface), or whether matter, wholly inertor,
has spiritual elements in it. The segregation of mind and matter in
Cartesian dualism had tremendous impact on psychology and
philosophy. Modern biology springs from the model of bete-machine
described in 1637 by Descartes. He suggested that if it were not
for his power of communicating his complex thought by means of
speech, man would have been indistinguishable from automation.
Molecular biology explains the interaction of complex molecules
(e.g. enzymes) based on the method mentioned by Descartes in
Discourse on Method^ part V. Cartesian philosophy also had some
impact on the women’s consciousness. The old Christian concept
s'^gg^sted that a woman possessed a distinctly female nature which
was mostly sinful. The Cartesians, on the other hand, suggested
that sex-differences are secondary, bodily and indeed, mechanist in
type. Men and women are the same basic human forms with a few
differences of machinery. In Descartes’ dualist philosophy, mind
and body are quite separate and that made, one of his followers to
declare that ‘mind is without sex’. Poullain de la Barre lent strong
support to feminism and female education in his two works
 The Rise of Modern Science 501

published in 1673 and 1674 in French. He went to the extent of

calling women superior to man by virtue of her motherhood {Egalite
des deux sexes and De Leducation des dames). He thereby suggested
gender equality, as woman is in all essential respects identical with
man in respect of mind and soul. Another scholar of the early
eighteenth century, G.E. Stahl talked of the organic unity of soul
and body and claimed that women have sensibility that is as much
physical as mental. These arguments were later picked up by
Rousseau, Bordeu and Roussel in their own ways.
However, by the eighteenth-century Newtons ideas achieved
ascendancy over Descartes’s physical theory, the duality of mind
and matter. Cartesian influence nevertheless, has been wide and
pervasive over European philosophers. His mathematics and ske­
ptical method provided a base for modern science and his views on
mastering mind and matter has influenced contemporary thought.
Bacon and Descartes provided two paths for the study of modern
science, and the scientific methods governed the course of scientific
developments in subsequent periods. The Baconians in England
stressed the role of empirical science based on experiments. Bacons
idea of research as a collective enterprise was aimed at providing
practical benefits to entire society. He made a strong impact on
many scientists, especially the founders of the English Royal Society.
This experimental method was adopted by important scientists such
as William Harvey (1578—1657), a well-known physician who
discovered the circulation of blood, Robert Boyle (1627—91), a
renowned chemist who formed Boyle’s law on temperature and
gas pressure, Robert Hooke (1635-1703), a famous biologist who
used the microscope to discover the cellular structure of plants. In
France, Blaise Pascal contributed to the research in conic sections
that help in the foundation of integral calculus, discovered
barometric pressure and invented a theorem, and Pierre Gassendi
worked on atomic theory within the Cartesian tradition. The
principles of scientific inquiry and the methods of science began
to receive serious attention from the intellectual community not
only in England and France but throughout Europe. In Newton’s
time science gradually became an institutionalized feature in some
societies of Western Europe.
 502 Europe in Transition

Several contributors of science, such as Gilbert (magnetism and

electricity), Kepler (astronomy), Harvey (physiplogy), Galileo
(dynamics) and many others promoted the climate of academic
sciences. The foundations of several new branches of science were
firmly laid by the mid-seventeenth century. Many academic societies
in different countries were also established to promote and diffuse
science in their respective societies. In London, Greesham College
became a centre for scientific discussion and research. In Paris,
Martin Mersenne (1588-1637) created a network of extensive
scientific exchange that cut across state boundaries. He also
translated Galileo into French. There were many people from
different professions, members of the aristocracy, merchants and
scholars and thinkers of natural philosophy who contributed to
the formation of such societies. Perhaps, the first academy dedicated
to scientific works was created in Naples in the 1540s. It was a
secret place of work. Academia Segreta, as the name suggests. This
was followed by the Academia dei Lincei at Rome, created in 1603.
Galileo was associated wdth it from 1611. The first formal organ­
ization was the Accademia del Cimento at Florence (1657). It was
followed by the creation of the Royal Society of London (1662)
and the Academie Royle des Sciences in Paris (1665). All these
institutions came into existence because of the interest of their
ruling houses and were supported by financial grants. Among the
earliest members of the English Royal Society were William Petty
and Robert Boyle who became famous through their contribution
to mechanical or agricultural innovations and scientific studies
respectively. The Royal Society was formed under the patronage of
Charles II, the English ruler and reflected the growing interest in
science in England. The members came from diverse social
backgrounds and included Edmond Halley, an astronomer, the
philosopher John Locke, founder of British empiricism and
Christopher Wren, a talented and renowned architect. The intention
of the Royal Society was to encourage ingenious and enlightened
tradesmen as well as philosophers and physicians. The Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society published some of the important
works of its members, particularly in the field of mathematics. It
began to collect information about agricultural practices in the
 The Rise of Modem Science 503

country in order to select the best and make it popular, but the
real objective was to promote pure sciences and bring scientific
contributors to a common platform. In this society, new scientific
outlook was defended purely on intellectual grounds and not
because of its usefulness. In this process technology as a branch of
science did not receive sufficient attention and its promotion only
took place during the eighteenth century with the coming of
industrialization.
Scientific subjects like matter and motion, vacuum, magnetism
and the components of colour were also debated and studied under
the famous natural philosopher Margaret Cavendish, the duchess
of Newcastle (1623-73).This ‘Newcastle circle’became a gathering
of distinguished scholars and scientists. In Paris, the Academie des
Sciences was the creation of the famous mercantilist and minister
Colbert under the patronage of Louis XIV and served as a
department for scientific and industrial research. It was a product
of mercantilist thinking and its objective was to promote useful
inventions, to surt^ey the natural resources of the land and to make
them useful to the state. It also aimed to raise the level of technical
proficiency to increase foreign trade and accumulate bullion. The
Paris observatory was also established to conduct research in the
field of natural philosophy. Both in England and France, the
scientific activities flourished around the national societies in order
to make scientific research more useful. As mentioned earlier, both
the societies failed to promote technological studies, which had a
direct bearing in the field of crafts and industries.

S c ie n c e a n d R e u g io n

There has been an important debate on the relationship between

the Protestant reformation and the rise of modern science. Some
of the scholars argue that the experimental science was the product
of Protestant ethics. There are many others who suggest that the
development of modern science was not confined to the Protestant
societies, rather it originated in the Catholic countries, especially
in Italy.
Among the scholars who argue that the rise of modern science
 504 Europe in Transition

was closely associated with the ideas of the Protestant religion and
believed that the experimental science developed by the seventeenth
century because of 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. According to Weber,
the Protestant religion, particularly Calvinism, created a favourable
atmosphere for experimental science. Linldng Webers Protestant
Ethic thesis that considers Protestant Reformation promoting
the rise of Western capitalism, an American sociologist Robert K.
Merton in his work. Science, Technology a n d Society in Seventeenth
Century England, emphasizes that those factors which promote
active life and scientific experimentation, were to be seen in the
Protestant ethics and religion. He considers the role of Puritanism
as crucial to the emergence of modern science. While comparing
scientists with religious reformers, he suggests three important
elements of the relationship between the two. First, the early
Protestant ethos was expressed in a scientific thought. Second,
Calvinism emphasized 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. According to Merton, we must turn
to the religious ethos and not theology to understand the integration
of science with religion in the seventeenth-century England. 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 in­
creasingly recognized 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. Yet his thesis does not
ignore the importance of socio-economic forces. He never implied
that it was the sanction of science by religion that led to the
 The Rise of Modern Science 505

discoveries of Boyle or Newton and that Protestant religion was

the primary variable on which science was based. Merton suggests
that the Puritan values helped to create an audience that was
receptive to programmes for the improvement of man’s life.
S.F. Mason is another contributor to this debate on the relation­
ship between science and reformation. In his work, The Scientific
Revolution and Protestant Reformation, Mason ascribes a variety of
factors to the growth of scientific movements. He points out that
the new technical problems in the field of industr}', navigation and
war were caused by economic stimulus, the religious drive by the
Puritans towards performing good work and many other factors.
Mason suggests that throughout the sixteenth century, science was
closely connected with 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. SirThomas Greesham contributed to the promotion
of science as he in his ■will wished three out of seven chairs at
Greesham College to be devoted to scientific subjects. Mason points
out that during the early seventeenth century, English science
remained connected with navigational and mercantile problems.
William Gilbert and Francis Bacon stressed the value of science
for the promotion of industry and the building of a new world­
view. 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. However, such factors were essentially practical and could
account only for specific branches of science such as magnetism,
mechanics and astronomy but not the structure and pattern of new
theories of early modern science, i.e. the ideological theories of
which the theology of Calvin was most important in England.
Mason suggests that the preponderance of Protestants over
Catholics among the important scientists of modern Europe could
be ascribed to three main factors. First, concordance between the
early Protestant ethos and the scientific attitude by which the
medieval world-view was overthrown by the Protestant reformers
and the scientists; second, the use of science to highlight the basis
506 E u r o p e in T r a n s i t i o n

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.
Giving the example of Swiss and German reformers. Mason 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 emphasized the
religious duty of performing‘good works’and they placed scientific
activity among the good works that was sanctioned by Puritan ethic.
This view dominated the first generation of the members of the
Royal Society. The anti-authoritarianism and individualism was
common to the early Protestant and modern scientists. The main
centres of 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.
One o f the most important contributors to this debate is
Christopher Hill. In his two major works. The Century o f Revolution
and The Intellectual Origins o f the English Revolution, Hill argues
that scientific development was an ordinary social happening along
with the rise o f Puritanism and the bourgeois class. Hill concentrates
 The Rise of Modern Science 507

on intellectual movements related to the English Revolution. He

suggests that the groups involved in this conflict laid the foundation
of organized 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 emphasizes that Puritanism, modern science, merchant class
and the skilled artisans had a close relationship, which is reflected
in the establishment of Greeshan 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.
There are a number of writers who do not subscribe to the above
views and refute the argument that the rise of modern science was
related to the spread of Protestant Reformation. Among the
important critics, are of M.M. Knappen, M.H. Curtis,J.B. Cannot,
T.K. Rabb,T.S. Kuhn and H.F. Kearney.TS. 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 ridiculed his views whereas the Popes
who were against the Reformation welcomed such views. 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 emphasizes
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
 508 Europe in Transition

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. Casting doubt on Merton’s
arguments, 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.
T.K. Rabb criticizes some of the arguments of Hill and others
and suggests that it is not easy to find any neat statistical connection
between Puritanism and the rise of experimental science. The
relationship is not clear at least till 1640. He points out that Catholic
Italy was the only centre of scientific experimentation in the early
period of modern science. Almost all the contributors to the
Scientific Revolution had lived in Italy for some time or studied at
the important centres oflearning. Copernicus was a priest 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 criticizes
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.
William Ashworth in ‘Catholicism and Early Modern Science’
suggests that the Jesuit scientific enterprise was first such effort
based on collaboration. Manyjesuits had a keen sense of the value
o f precision in experimental science, a trait not seen the con-
 The Rise o f Modern Science 509

temporary societies of Europe. They practised science on a wide

scale, they were able investigators, made many important discoveries
and inventions, and encouraged others in these activities. Yet,
according to Ashworth, Jesuit science was somehow deficient.There
was a total lack of discrimination and reliability of evidence. Besides,
there was no philosophy of nature and as a result no Jesuit could
come close to the stature of Descartes, Galileo or Pascal.
Toby Huff presents another interesting view. Without em­
phasizing religion. Huff gives a culturist interpretation of the rise
of modern science. He argues that till the fourteenh 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.
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
physio-theology, 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).
Although the debate remains inconclusive, more and more
scholars are accepting the view that the Refonuation contributed
to the atmosphere of intellectual activity, though a direct relationship
 510 Europe in Transition

between the Reformation and the Scientific Revolution is difficult

to establish. The rise of modern science was the product of urban
society yet individual contributions also played a significant role in
this process. With the changing economic and social conditions,
both the Protestants as well as Catholics had to adjust to a new
reality. As the centre of economic activity shifted from southern
Kurope to north-west Europe, the scientific activities increased in
the latter region.
Thus, scholars on this subject say that the Scientific Revolution
marked a triumph of mind, underscoring the essential link between
liberty o f thought and intellect with democracy. Many sciences
underwent fundamental reorientation both in their conceptual
foundations and their component. The concepts and practice of
many individual sciences like optics and kinetics were transformed
and new philosophies of nature. Science began to occupy a
permanent place in European culture and society. Most import­
antly, new conceptions of nature were formed and mans relationship
with it was formed. Seventeenth century science created and
imposed its concept of nature based on a regular mechanical order
and universal laws. W^ith this, as Roy Porter says, God became more
remote and Nature less sacrosanct.

I m p o r t a n t E v e n t s o f t h e S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t io n

1543 C op ern icu s s On the Revolution ofHeavenly Bodies published.

1560 Italian physicist G iam b attista della P o rta ( 1 5 3 5 - 1 6 1 5 ) established
the A ca d e m y o f the M ysteries o f N ature {Nutura Magick), the first
scientific association but it was short-lived.
1576 C o n stru ctio n o f B ra h e ’s observatory started.
1582 G rego rian calendar adopted.
1591 G alileo com es up w ith the law o f falling bodies.
1600 W illia m G ilb ert publishes De magnete.
1609 K epler con stru cted third law o f m otion.
1610 G alileo, The Starry Messenger (th a t helped in the study o f Ju p iter,
•
four m oon s, Venus and sunspots).
1620 F ran cis B a c o n com es out w ith Novum Organum or the Scientific
M e th o d .
1627 K ep ler’s book o f p lanetary tables published.
1628 H a rv ty V Onihe Motion of the Heart published.