Historians have offered wildly differing assessments of the Scientific Revolution

Historians have offered wildly differing assessments of the Scientific Revolution. Herbert Butterfield called it “the real origin of the modern world and of the modern mentality.” Caroline Merchant, referring to the new mechanical philosophy, considered it “the death of nature.” Steven Shapin, meanwhile, has written that “there was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution.” Which of these do you find most convincing, and why? Does it make sense to use the term “revolution” to describe developments in the sciences from 1500 to 1700? If so, why; if not, why not?


Buy plagiarism free, original and professional custom paper online now at a cheaper price. Submit your order proudly with us



Essay Hope