Scientific revolution

The scientific revolution was the emergence of modern science during the early modern period, when developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology and chemistry transformed views of society and nature. Many people were unsure to call the scientific revolution indeed revolutionary. Edward Grant and Steven Shapin both have different views on the question and they both try to prove their point.

Edward Grant argues that there indeed was a revolution in science that took place in the seventeenth century. Grant's paper emphasizes the distinctiveness of medieval European universities and their cultivation of science. It focuses on the scientific revolution in astronomy, cosmology and physics in the course of the 16th and 17th centuries and the beginning of modern science. He taped about how achievements were translated from Greek and Arabic into Latin, which caused a great impact.

Steven Shapin doesn't believe that the scientific revolution was indeed revolutionary.
As he starts his paper by saying "There was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution and this is a book about it" which goes straight to his point. He mentions that the scientific revolution is often misunderstood. He talks about the attempted mechanization of knowledge making, that is the proposed deployment of explicitly formulated rules of method that aimed at disciplining the production of knowledge by managing or eliminating the effects of human passions and interests. He states that the main goal was always to find a more philosophical knowledge about the natural world.

Grant and Shapin both use very good explanations to prove their point. They both saw the importance of modern science in different ways. Grant talks about the new teachings that came with the modern science. Shapin says the modern science outshines the value of the renaissance and reformation. They both talk about the impacts of the scientific revolution, good and bad . Grant does use some unnecessary information though as well as Shapin , which does happen other then that both articles were on point.

In my opinion both articles explained the point in a great way! But Grant made his point in a better understanding way. He clearly explains why the scientific revolution is so important for today's teachings. Grant states about the pros that we have because of modern science. For example new advancements in medicine that were made.

Both articles had completely different views on the scientific revolution being revolutionary. Modern science helped many historians to be able to prove why the scientific revolution was a positive thing. Even though it's misunderstood the scientific revolution was becoming a new way to learn and view things in many other ways.