Historians disagree as to the nature of the Scientific Revolution, whether it was an internal or external phenomenon. What are the premises of each interpretation? Which one seems most valid and why?
Before the Scientific Revolution, astronomers and scientists based their research on Aristotle and Ptolemy’s theories of the earth being the center of the universe and ten transparent spheres representing the moon, sun, the five known planets at the time (not including the earth), and the heavens. These theories were based solely on Church scripture, and thus they fit perfectly in comparison. Fast-forwarding to the early sixteenth century, a change was beginning, in the form of a “Scientific Revolution” – a time where new advancements and ideas concerning the universe were formed and old theories destroyed. Historians argue that the Scientific Revolution was an internal phenomenon in which scientists, for instance Kepler and Newton, worked with the only influence being their own desires to work; on the other hand, others believe that the Revolution was primarily influenced by factors such as social, economic, cultural, and religious situations currently at hand, thus an external phenomenon.
External situations at the time included new ideas contradicting those of the Bible, problems experienced during long sea voyages, and the relatively fundamental level of mathematical knowledge at the time. At first, the main religious groups, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Judaism, all did not approve of the Copernican theory. But as time progressed, the Catholics granted minor tolerance to the sciences, meaning the scientific interests of Renaissance Italy were able to achieve significant progress. In 1633, this toleration stopped with the help of Galileo being tried for heresy. Seven years later, the Counter-Reformation Church became hostile towards scientific expansion while the Protestant countries became pro-science. In the economic area, problems during sea trade voyages occurred and captains did not have a way to accurately chart their positions. As a result, the King of Portugal assigned mathematicians to create perfect sea tables and reliable maps; they did and the risks of international trade were greatly reduced. At the same time, the king granted funds in the development of Brahe’s observatory.
But the problem of fixing longitude was still present (it would be solved, but not by this generation). After Sir Thomas Gresham died, the Gresham College was established using the hefty sum of money he left for its construction. He had one stipulation – three of the seven professors had to teach only science. The yielded results included the development of new scientific instruments such as the telescope, barometer, thermometer, pendulum clock, microscope, and air pump; the College became the center for English scientific activity. Later, the scientists from the College mixed with “practical” men and formed the Royal Society of London whose sole basis was printing scientific papers and holding meetings. Finally, to solve the problem of deficiencies in mathematics, the Renaissance-recovered Greek mathematic knowledge was integrated into the current European math. Rulers and wealthy businessmen, like the Medici family of Florence, used the Renaissance pattern of patronage to fund scientists, like Galileo, in their investigations.
On the other hand, scientists from Copernicus to Newton relied primarily on internal motivations and building on previous learning to make their discoveries. Nicolaus Copernicus’s motivation for research was his self desire to explain God’s actions. He theorized that the universe was heliocentric as well as infinite; star movement at night was due to the earth rotating as well as being just another planet and nothing special. In 1572, almost three centuries after Copernicus’s death, a new star appeared in the sky that contradicted the Aristotelian idea of the heavenly spheres being unchanging. Five years later, a comet was spotted cutting through the “impenetrable” crystal spheres. After this, one scientist stated that science was about to experience “the radical renovation of astronomy.” Tycho Brahe took this literally and took action. He traveled abroad to study astronomy and with his immense amount of observations of the new star, he later returned to establish himself as Europe’s leading astronomer. He built an observatory and recorded his naked-eye observations of the stars for twenty years, but could not understand them due to his limited knowledge of mathematics. After his death, his assistant Johannes Kepler took his mentor’s torch and made sense of his observations. He developed three laws of planetary motion based on Copernicus’ theory: (1) planetary orbit was elliptical, (2) the planets do not move at the same speed, and (3) the time it takes for a planet to complete its orbit depends on its distance from the sun.
As Kepler was in the process of making sense of Brahe’s notes, Galileo was taking action through space observation. Taking the “applied experimental method” page out of Brahe’s book, Galileo used the telescope and discovered four of Jupiter’s moons, thus contributing to the further diminishing of the Aristotelian world-view. Finally, Issac Newton based his book Principia on combining the Kepler-corrected Copernican astronomy with the physics of Galileo and his assistants into a single synthesis to explain motion both on earth and in the sky.
In summary, the most valid interpretation is that the Scientific Revolution was internal. Although new inventions from external influences for sea exploration and observation did spring up, they do not meet the criteria as being directly related to the Revolution. The term Scientific Revolution mainly means “a change in world view.” A limited few believed in Church doctrine or Aristotelian world-view after seeing physical proof for each of the five scientists’ assertions. Within this “select” ring of scientists, each of them borrowed an idea from the previous – Copernicus borrowed from the Greeks, Kepler from Brahe and Copernicus, Galileo from Brahe, and Newton from Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. Very few outside forces affected their discoveries; even without the King of Portugal’s funding of Brahe’s observatory, it would have been possible for Brahe to record his findings due to his “naked-eye” observing.
Yes, the Church did declare Copernicus’s theory false and Galileo was charged with heresy, but did that affect their beliefs? The answer is “no.” Copernicus’s theory in the eyes of the Church was now false, but to the scientists it was not. In Galileo’s case, he publicly denounced his own ideas, but did he recant them at heart or did Newton not include them in his synthesis? The answer is also “no”. The discoveries by these revolutionary thinkers were present in life, but it was up to the people to take action to believe and improve upon them.
In the end, regardless of the argument of whether the Scientific Revolution was internal or external, its level of success would not have been reached without the other perspective being present. The Revolution transitioned successfully in all areas of the state from monarch to peasant, with new discoveries made and inventions created. The old ideas were now being replaced by new ideas coming from the various scientists and thinkers of the future.