Shapin, The Scientific Revolution - II

Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996.

Steven Shapin, a Professor of the history of science at Harvard University, wrote The Scientific Revolution as a supplementary text for students to comprehend the tremendous discursive shift that was taking place in Europe from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century. The monograph, aptly titled, is however misleading. Within the first few pages Shapin explains to the reader that the Scientific Revolution never happened, “The past is not transformed in the ‘modern world’ as any single moment… their notions had to be successively transformed and redefined by generations of thinkers to become ‘ours,’” (7). Instead Shapin emphasizes that science was a “social process” (9), one in which the major historical actors such as Galileo, Newton and Copernicus walked a fine line between established “pseudosciences” such as astrology and alchemy and “proper sciences” such as astronomy and chemistry. Shapin points out that all these men were staunch believers in both these sciences. His thesis, which states that the development of science was a human affair, and as a consequence, scientific “breakthroughs” were subject to social acceptance such as approval from the church or the ruling authority.

Shapin’s book, which is organized thematically, is divided into three sections related to knowledge. The first “What was Know?” explores pre-“revolution” knowledge that was embedded in European society. Shapin points out that Europeans understanding of the “natural sciences” came from Aristotle, and essentially remained unchallenged for over a millennium. He also uses the chapter to introduce the various scientific discoveries that were taking place in Europe through the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, although Shapin admittedly focuses his research on Britain. His next chapter, “How was it Known,” is where Shapin explains the process of limited dissemination of scientific discoveries. Shapin is careful to explain that the printing press was instrumental in this process. However, due to limited literacy, scientific “breakthroughs” rarely reached the masses. More stifling than this was the possibility that their contemporaries simply rejected their discoveries. Bacon’s scientific method was one of the greatest defenses against scrutiny. If a well documented experiment could be replicated in other facilities, or in the presences of the Royal Society, the gentleman faced less scrutiny.

Shapin’s last and longest chapter, “What was the Knowledge for?” is the most crucial of three in supporting his thesis. One of the most noteworthy sections within this chapter is his discussion of knowledge and power. Although he denies that the series of scientific discoveries constituted as a revolution, Shapin acknowledges that European politics, society and culture were in a state of permanent crisis from the late medieval period through the seventeenth century, which created a space for established forms of knowledge to be called into question, which in turn lead to a paradigm shift(123). As knowledge became more fragmented, and centered within non-religious universities, the Roman Catholic papacy declined in power. This process however was extremely gradual, and in fact many of the men that were making these discoveries were devoutly religious, including Galileo and Newton.

Shapin predominantly relies on secondary resources for the majority of his research and includes an impressive historigraphical essay at the end of the monograph for any that wish to further their reading of the subject. For the bulk of his readers, which are probably not experts in the field of history of science, the book is approachable and easy to understand. While focusing the history around European cultural trends instead of the experiments themselves, Shapin avoids a possible repetitive style of listing experiments after experiment and its interaction with society. Instead he weaves a narrative together for the reader and shows her that scientific “breakthroughs” were more of a slowly evolving dialogue between culture and science in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.