The Scientific Revolution

The period which many historians of science call the Scientific Revolution is
commonly viewed as the foundation and origin of modern science. It was a
time roughly coinciding with the later part of the Middle Ages and through the
Renaissance in which scientific ideas in physics, astronomy, and biology
evolved rapidly.

The Scientific Revolution can be roughly dated as having begun in the 16 th

Century, when me like Nicholas Copernicus published his De revolutionibus
orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) and Andreas
Vesalius published his De humani corporis fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human
body). Since the time of Voltaire, some observers have considered that a
revolutionary change in thought, called in recent times as a scientific
revolution, took place around the year 1600—a time coinciding with dramatic
and historically rapid changes in the ways in which scholars thought about the
physical world and studied it. As with many historical demarcations,
historians of science disagree about its boundaries. Although the period is
commonly dated to the 16th and 17th centuries, some see elements
contributing to the revolution as early as the middle ages, and finding its last
stages—in chemistry and biology—in the 18th and 19th centuries. There is
general agreement, however, that the intervening period saw a fundamental
transformation in scientific ideas in physics, astronomy, and biology, in
institutions supporting scientific investigation (like the Royal Societies), and in
the more widely held picture of the universe.

Science, as it is treated in this account, is essentially understood and practiced

in the modern world; with various "other narratives" or alternate ways of
knowing omitted.

Alexandre Koyreé coined the term and definition of 'The Scientific Revolution'
in 1939, which later influenced the work of traditional historian A. Rupert Hall
and scientist J.D. Bernal and subsequent historiography on the subject (Steven
Shapin, The Scientific Revolution, 1996). To some extent, this arises from
different conceptions of what the revolution was; some of the rancor and
cross-purposes in such debates may arise from lack of recognition of these
fundamental differences. But it also and more crucially arises from
disagreements over the historical facts about different theories and their
logical analysis.

1
The Scientific Revolution of the late Renaissance was significant in
establishing a base for many modern sciences. The scientist J. D. Bernal
believed that “the renaissance enabled a scientific revolution which let
scholars look at the world in a different light. Religion, superstition, and fear
were replaced by reason and knowledge”. Despite some challenges to Roman
Catholic dogma, however, many notable figures of time known today as the
Scientific Revolution - Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and even Galileo -
remained devout in their faith.

Many contemporary writers and modern historians claim that there was a
revolutionary change in world view. In 1611 the English poet, John Donne,
wrote:

“[The] new Philosophy calls all in doubt,

The Element of fire is quite put out;
The Sun is lost, and th'earth, and no man's wit
Can well direct him where to look for it.”

Mid-twentieth century historian Herbert Butterfield was less disconcerted,

but nevertheless saw the change as fundamental: “Since that revolution turned
the authority in English not only of the Middle Ages but of the ancient world —
since it started not only in the eclipse of scholastic philosophy but in the
destruction of Aristotelian physics — it outshines everything since the rise of
Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere
episodes, mere internal displacements within the system of medieval
Christendom.... [It] looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world
and of the modern mentality that our customary periodization of European
history has become an anachronism and an encumbrance.”

More recently, sociologist and historian of science Steven Shapin opened his
book, The Scientific Revolution, with the paradoxical statement: “There was no
such thing as the Scientific Revolution, and this is a book about it.” Although
historians of science continue to debate the exact meaning of the term, and
even its validity, the Scientific Revolution still remains a useful concept to
interpret the many changes in science.

The Scientific Revolution was not marked by any single change. The following
new ideas contributed to what is called the Scientific Revolution:

2
 The replacement of the Earth by the Sun as the center of the solar
system
 The replacement of the Aristotelian theory that matter was
continuous and made up of the elements Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether by
rival ideas that matter was atomistic or corpuscular (that all of reality is made
of indivisible basic building blocks—atoms), or that its chemical composition
was even more complex.
 The replacement of the Aristotelian idea that by their nature, heavy
bodies moved straight down toward their natural places; that by their nature,
light bodies moved naturally straight up toward their natural place; and that
by their nature, aethereal bodies moved in unchanging circular motions by the
idea that all bodies are heavy and move according to the same physical laws
(Newton’s Laws of Motion.)
 The replacement of the Aristotelian concept that all motions require
the continued action of a cause by the inertial concept that motion is a state
that, once started, continues indefinitely without further cause.
 The replacement of Galen's treatment of the venous and arterial
systems as two separate systems with William Harvey's concept that blood
circulated from the arteries to the veins “impelled in a circle, and is in a state
of ceaseless motion.”

However, many of the important figures of the scientific revolution shared in

the Renaissance respect for ancient learning and cited ancient pedigrees for
their innovations. Copernicus (1473–1543), Kepler (1571–1630), Newton
(1643–1727) and Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) all traced different ancient and
medieval ancestries for the heliocentric system. In memos of his draft
preparations of the second edition of the Principia Newton attributed his first
law of motion and his law of gravity to a range of historical figures. According
to Newton himself and other historians of science, his Principia's first law of
motion was the same as Aristotle's counterfactual principle of interminable
locomotion in a void stated in Physics 4.8.215a19-22 and was also endorsed by
ancient Greek atomists and others.

As Newton expressed himself: “All those ancients knew the first law [of motion]
who attributed to atoms in an infinite vacuum a motion which was rectilinear,
extremely swift and perpetual because of the lack of resistance...Aristotle was of
the same mind, since he expresses his opinion thus...[in Physics 4.8.215a19-22],
speaking of motion in the void [in which bodies have no gravity and] where
there is no impediment he writes: 'Why a body once moved should come to rest
anywhere no one can say. For why should it rest here rather than there? Hence

3
either it will not be moved, or it must be moved indefinitely, unless something
stronger impedes it.” [pg 310-11, Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton,
Hall & Hall, Cambridge University Press 1962.]

If correct, Newton's view that the Principia's first law of motion had been
accepted at least since antiquity and by Aristotle refutes the traditional thesis
of a scientific revolution in dynamics by Newton's laws, that the law was
denied earlier by Aristotle. The ancestor to Newton's laws of inertia and
momentum was the theory of impetus developed by the medieval scholars
John Philoponus, Avicenna and Jean Buridan. The concepts of acceleration and
reaction were also hypothesized by the medieval Arabic physicists, Hibat Allah
Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi and Avempace.

The geocentric model remained a widely accepted model until around 1543
when a Polish astronomer by the name of Nicholas Copernicus published his
book entitled “On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres.” At around the same
time, the findings of Vesalius corrected the previous anatomical teachings of
Galen, which were based upon the dissection of animals even though they
were supposed to be a guide to the human body. Andreas Vesalius (1514-
1564) was an author of one of the most influential books on human anatomy,
De humani corporis fabrica.

French surgeon Ambroise Pareé (c.1510–1590) is considered as one of the

fathers of surgery. He was a leader in surgical techniques and battlefield
medicine, especially the treatment of wounds. Anatomist William Harvey
(1578–1657) described the circulatory system of the human body. Herman
Boerhaave (1668–1738) is sometimes referred to as a "father of physiology"
due to his exemplary teaching in Leiden and textbook 'Institutiones medicae'
(1708).

It was between 1650 and 1800 that the science of modern dentistry
developed. It is said that the 17th century French physician Pierre Fauchard
(1678–1761) started dentistry science as we know it today, and he has been
named "the father of modern dentistry".

Wilhelm Schickard (1592–1635) built one of the first calculating machines in

1623. Pierre Vernier (1580–1637) was inventor and eponym of the vernier
scale used in measuring devices. Evangelista Torricelli (1607–1647) was best
known for his invention of the barometer. Although John Napier (1550–1617)
invented logarithms, and Edmund Gunter (1581–1626) created the

4
logarithmic scales (lines, or rules) upon which slide rules are based, it was
William Oughtred (1575–1660) who first used two such scales sliding by one
another to perform direct multiplication and division; and thus is credited as
the inventor of the slide rule in 1622.

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) made important contributions to the construction

of mechanical calculators, the study of fluids, and clarified the concepts of
pressure and vacuum by generalizing the work of Evangelista Torricelli. He
wrote a significant treatise on the subject of projective geometry at the age of
sixteen, and later corresponded with Pierre de Fermat (1601–1665) on
probability theory, strongly influencing the development of modern
economics and social science. John Hadley (1682–1744) was mathematician
inventor of the octant, the precursor to the sextant used by sailors in
navigation. Hadley also improved the reflecting telescope, building the first
Gregorian telescope.

Denis Papin (1647–1712) was best known for his pioneering invention of the
steam digester, the forerunner of the steam engine. Abraham Darby I (1678–
1717) was the first, and most famous, of three generations with that name in
an Abraham Darby family that played an important role in the Industrial
Revolution. He developed a method of producing high-grade iron in a blast
furnace fuelled by coke rather than charcoal. This was a major step forward in
the production of iron as a raw material for the Industrial Revolution. Thomas
Newcomen (1664–1729) perfected a practical steam engine for pumping
water, the Newcomen steam engine.

In 1672, Otto von Guericke (1602–1686), was the first human to knowingly
generate electricity using a machine, and in 1729, Stephen Gray (1666-1736)
demonstrated that electricity could be "transmitted" through metal filaments.
The first electrical storage device was invented in 1745, the so-called "Leyden
jar," and in 1749, Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) demonstrated that lightning
was electricity. In 1698 Thomas Savery (c.1650-1715) patented an early steam
engine.

German scientist Georg Agricola (1494–1555), known as "the father of

mineralogy", published his great work “De re metallica.” Robert Boyle (1627–
1691) was credited with the discovery of Boyle's Law. He is also credited for
his landmark publication The Sceptical Chymist, where he attempts to develop
an atomic theory of matter. The person celebrated as the "father of modern
chemistry" is Antoine Lavoisier (1743–1794) who developed his law of

5
Conservation of mass in 1789, also called Lavoisier's Law. Antoine Lavoisier
proved that burning was caused by oxidation, that is, the mixing of a substance
with oxygen. He also proved that diamonds were made of carbon and argued
that all living processes were at their heart chemical reactions. In 1766, Henry
Cavendish (1731-1810) discovered hydrogen. In 1774, Joseph Priestley
(1733–1804) discovered oxygen.

German physician Leonhart Fuchs (1501–1566) was one of the three founding
fathers of botany, along with Otto Brunfels (1489- 1534) and Hieronymus
Bock (1498-1554) (also called Hieronymus Tragus). Valerius Cordus (1515–
1554) authored one of the greatest pharmacopoeias and one of the most
celebrated herbals in history, Dispensatorium (1546).

In his Systema Naturae, published in 1767, Carl von Linneé (1707–1778)

catalogued all the living creatures into a single system that defined their
morphological relations to one another: the Linnean classification system. He
is often called the "Father of Taxonomy". Georges Buffon (1707-1788), was
perhaps the most important of Charles Darwin’s predecessors. From 1744 to
1788, he wrote his monumental Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière,
which included everything known about the natural world up until that date.

Along with the inventor and microscopist Robert Hooke (1635–1703), Sir
Christopher Wren (1632–1723) and Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), English
scientist and astronomer Edmond Halley (1656-1742) was trying to develop a
mechanical explanation for planetary motion. Halley's star catalogue of 1678
was the first to contain telescopically determined locations of southern stars.

Many historians of science have seen other ancient and medieval antecedents
of these ideas.It is widely accepted that Copernicus's De revolutionibus
followed the outline and method set by Ptolemy in his Almagest and adapted
the geocentric model of the Maragheh school in a heliocentric context, and
that Galileo's mathematical treatment of acceleration and his concept of
impetus grew out of earlier medieval analyses of motion, especially those of
Avicenna, Avempace, Jean Buridan, and the Oxford Calculators. Human blood
circulation and pulmonary circulation were first described by Ibn al-Nafis
several centuries before the scientific revolution.

The standard theory of the history of the scientific revolution claims the 17th
century was a period of revolutionary scientific changes. It is claimed that not
only were there revolutionary theoretical and experimental developments, but

6
 that even more importantly, the way in which scientists worked was radically
changed. An alternative anti-revolutionist view is that science as exemplified
by Newton's Principia was anti-mechanist and highly Aristotelian, being
specifically directed at the refutation of anti-Aristotelian Cartesian
mechanism, and not more empirical than it already was at the beginning of the
century or earlier in the works of scientists such as Ibn al-Haytham, Benedetti,
Galileo Galilei, or Johannes Kepler.

The scientific revolution was built upon the foundation of ancient Greek and
Hellenistic learning, as it had been elaborated and further developed by
Roman/Byzantine science followed by medieval Islamic science and the
schools and universities of medieval Europe. Though it had evolved
considerably over the centuries, this "Aristotelian tradition" was still the
dominant intellectual framework in 16th and 17th century Europe.

Key ideas from this period, which would be transformed fundamentally during
the scientific revolution, include:
 Aristotle's cosmology which placed the Earth at the center of a spherical
cosmos, with a hierarchical order to the Universe. The terrestrial and celestial
regions were made up of different elements which had different kinds of
natural movement.

 The Ptolemaic model of planetary motion: Ptolemy's Almagest

demonstrated that geometrical calculations could compute the exact positions
of the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets in the future and in the past, and showed
how these computational models were derived from astronomical
observations. As such they formed the model for later astronomical
developments.

Historians of the Scientific Revolution traditionally maintain that the most

important changes were in the way in which scientific investigation was
conducted, as well as the philosophy underlying scientific developments.
Among the main changes are the mechanical philosophy (under Descartes and
Isaac Newton), the chemical philosophy (under Tycho Brahe, Robert Boyle,
Isaac Newton), empiricism, and the increasing role of mathematics.

The Aristotelian scientific tradition's primary mode of interacting with the

world was through observation and searching for "natural" circumstances. It
saw what we would today consider "experiments" to be contrivances which at
best revealed only contingent and un-universal facts about nature in an

7
artificial state. Coupled with this approach was the belief that rare events
which seemed to contradict theoretical models were "monsters", telling
nothing about nature as it "naturally" was. During the scientific revolution,
changing perceptions about the role of the scientist in respect to nature, the
value of evidence, experimental or observed, led towards a scientific
methodology in which empiricism played a large role.

Under the influence of scientists and philosophers like Ibn al-Haytham

(Alhacen) and Francis Bacon, an empirical tradition was developed by the
16th century. The Aristotelian belief of natural and artificial circumstances
was abandoned, and a research tradition of systematic experimentation was
slowly accepted throughout the scientific community. Bacon's philosophy of
using an inductive approach to nature – to abandon assumption and to
attempt to simply observe with an open mind – was in strict contrast with the
earlier, Aristotelian approach of deduction, by which analysis of "known facts"
produced further understanding. In practice, of course, many scientists (and
philosophers) believed that a healthy mix of both was needed—the
willingness to question assumptions, yet also interpret observations assumed
to have some degree of validity.

At the end of the scientific revolution the organic, qualitative world of book-
reading philosophers had been changed into a mechanical, mathematical
world to be known through experimental research. Though it is certainly not
true that Newtonian science was like modern science in all respects, it
conceptually resembled ours in many ways—much more so than the
Aristotelian science of a century earlier. Many of the hallmarks of modern
science, especially in respect to the institution and profession of science,
would not become standard until the mid-19th century. And yet, the
foundations for modern scientific sensibilities are most clearly seen in that
period of Newton and Descartes, Kepler and Tycho Brahe, Linnaeus and
Pascal, Buffon and Boyle.

Experimentalism and mathematization were both stimulated by an increasing

concern that knowledge of nature should be practically useful, bringing
distinct benefits to its practitioners, its patrons, or even to people in general.
Apart from supporting dubious medical ideas, the only use to which natural
philosophy had been put throughout the Middle Ages was for bolstering
religion. During the scientific revolution the practical usefulness of knowledge,
an assumption previously confined to the magical and the mathematical
traditions, was extended to natural philosophy. To a large extent this new

8
emphasis was a result of the demands of new patrons, chiefly wealthy princes,
who sought some practical benefit from their financial support for the study of
nature. The requirement that knowledge be practically useful was also in
keeping, however, with the claims of the Renaissance humanists that the vita
activa (active life) was—contrary to the teachings of the Church—morally
superior to the vita contemplativa (contemplative life) of the monk because of
the benefits an active life could bring to others. The major spokesman for this
new focus in natural philosophy was Francis Bacon, one-time Lord Chancellor
of England. Bacon promoted his highly influential vision of a reformed
empirical knowledge of nature that he believed would result in immense
benefits to mankind.

The scientific revolution was also a period during which new organizations
and institutions were established for the study of the natural world. While the
universities still tended to maintain the traditional natural philosophy, the
new empirical, mathematical, and practical approaches were encouraged in
the royal courts of Europe and in meetings of like-minded individuals, such as
the informal gatherings of experimental philosophers in Oxford and London
that occurred during the 1650s. The Royal Society of London was established
on a formal basis in 1660 by attendees of those earlier gatherings. Although
nominally under the patronage of Charles II, the Royal Society received no
financial support from the monarchy. A similar French society, the Acadeé mie
des Sciences de Paris, however, was set up by Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis
XIV's controller-general of finance, and its fellows were paid from the treasury.
Whatever their precise constitution, the proliferation of collaborative scientific
societies testifies to the widespread recognition that, as Bacon wrote,
“knowledge is power,” and knowledge of nature is potentially extremely
powerful.

These four factors—the experimental method, the mathematization of nature,

the emphasis on the practical usefulness of scientific knowledge, and the
development of scientific institutions—interacted with one another and were
historically dependent upon one another. In combination their impact on
European culture was phenomenal. To begin with, it rapidly became apparent
that the traditional Aristotelian natural philosophy was completely wrong.
Aristotelian teaching was so broad in scope, however, providing a ready
explanation for all phenomena, that it could not simply be abandoned. New
innovations and theories chipped away at Aristotelian teaching, but they were
independently derived and did not hang together to provide a comprehensive
alternative system. What was required was a completely new philosophy of

9
nature that could incorporate Copernican astronomy, Galileo's new theory of
motion, Harvey's new physiology, and all the other new discoveries, and show
how they followed from certain basic assumptions. This ambition began to be
realized in the early 17th century with the development of mechanical
philosophy. There were a number of slightly different versions of this new
philosophy, but their common foundation was the belief that the universe
functions like clockwork according to rules and without outside intervention.

The most influential early version of mechanical philosophy was developed by

French philosopher and scientist Reneé Descartes. Powerful as Descartes's
system was, its conclusions, which Descartes arrived at purely by a process of
abstract reasoning, were not always compatible with experimentally
determined phenomena. In late 17th-century England, a more empirically
based version of mechanical philosophy was developed. The success of this
version was triumphantly confirmed in 1687 with the publication of Isaac
Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical
Principles of Natural Philosophy).

Beginning with Descartes and culminating with Isaac Newton, the

development of mechanical philosophy can be seen as the foundation of the
modern scientific world-view. Previously, the dominant vision of the nature of
the world had been provided by religion. Natural philosophy had been merely
an adjunct to religion, a means of demonstrating God's existence and
omnipotence through the study of the intricacies of nature. The fragmentation
of Western Christianity after the Reformation, however, led to a weakening of
religion. Furthermore, the rise of philosophical skepticism during the
Renaissance quickly led to skepticism in religion.

Atheism, previously unknown in Christian Europe, gradually became an

increasingly popular alternative to religion. Ironically, although all of the major
figures in the scientific revolution were devoutly religious and saw their
scientific work as a way of proving the existence of an omnipotent creator, the
new mechanical philosophies were appropriated by atheists. Those who
wished to deny the validity of the religious world-view could use the new
philosophies to suggest that the world was capable of functioning in an
entirely mechanistic way with no need for supernatural intervention or
supervision.

Newton's influence upon European culture was entirely unprecedented. The

undeniable success of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687)

10
in understanding and describing the workings of nature convinced many that
by applying the same methods, all problems could be solved, even moral,
political, and economic problems. Many of the central beliefs of the
Enlightenment and new social sciences developed at that time owed their
origins to the powerful stimulus of Newtonian science. But all too often it was
a Newtonian science devoid of the God that Newton himself had believed in.
Newton was especially devout and explicitly stated that his system was
intended to demonstrate the existence of God, but he was powerless to
prevent the irreligious interpretation of his science. From then on the secular
scientific world-view became increasingly dominant.

Herbert Butterfield, the eminent Cambridge historian, once said that the
scientific revolution reduced the Renaissance and the Reformation “to the
rank of mere episodes,” and that it marked “the real origin both of the modern
world and of the modern mentality.” Given the overwhelming importance of
science and the scientific world-view in modern Western culture it is easy to
see what he meant. The historical significance of the scientific revolution has
ensured that the revolution, or some aspect of it (usually a supposed mental
attitude, such as a preoccupation with rationality or measurement), figures in
all attempts to explain the current dominance of the West in world culture.
Although the cultural imperialism of the West might now seem to owe more to
the consumerism of advanced capitalism, capitalism itself results from the
success of Western science and technology. This alliance between science and
technology in the West can be seen to have had its origins in the 17th-century
emphasis on the usefulness of scientific knowledge for the improvement of the
human condition. Naturally, there was friction between science and god.
Whereas scientific pursuits claimed to further investigate, and propagate, the
message of god, and enable man to fully comprehend god’s intentions, it
nevertheless staked the claim of its independence and autonomy from the
grasp of theology—the established “queen of the science”—as PM Harman
claims. While science was mean to serve religious ends, it also led to a
reappraisal of theology’s primacy and authority. As Herman declares: “The
mechanistic world view of the Scientific Revolution undermined many
traditional ideas about man’s place in nature. More fundamental than the
establishment of any particular theory about the natural world is the change in
philosophical perspective which was achieved, a new conception of man’s
capacity to understand and control the world around him. The idea of man the
active operator superseded the notion of man the passive spectator. The
scientific movement expressed an essentially optimistic outlook, a belief in the
possibility of achieving rational understanding.”

11
 Another view has been recently proposed by Arun Bala in his history of the
birth of modern science. Bala argues that the changes involved in the Scientific
Revolution – the mathematical realist turn, the mechanical philosophy, the
corpuscular (atomic) philosophy, the central role assigned to the Sun in
Copernican heliocentrism - have to be seen as rooted in multicultural
influences on Europe. Islamic science gave the first exemplar of a
mathematical realist theory with Alhazen's Book of Optics in which physical
light rays traveled along mathematical straight lines. The swift transfer of
Chinese mechanical technologies in the medieval era shifted European
sensibilities to perceive the world in the image of a machine. The Indian
number system, which developed in close association with atomism in India,
carried implicitly a new mode of mathematical atomic thinking. And the
heliocentric theory which assigned central status to the sun, as well as
Newton’s concept of force acting at a distance, were rooted in ancient Egyptian
religious ideas associated with Hermeticism. Bala argues that by ignoring such
multicultural impacts we have been led to a Eurocentric conception of the
Scientific Revolution. During the 17th century, however, Western Europeans
overtook everyone and went much further.

Many people have tried to understand why the scientific revolution occurred
when and where it did. Philosophical attempts to understand the workings of
nature and the techniques of mathematical analysis reached astonishingly
high levels of accomplishment among the ancient Greeks. During the Middle
Ages it looked as though the civilization of Islam would build upon the Greek
legacy, while Europeans ignored it. The Muslims made notable achievements
in natural philosophy, chemistry, medicine, and mathematics. Meanwhile,
science and technology in China were also ahead of anything in Europe.
During the 17th century, however, Western Europeans overtook everyone and
went much further. Historians are still struggling to understand why the
Western Europeans inaugurated the scientific revolution, rather than the
Greeks, Muslims, or Chinese.

Sources:

1. Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science, 1300-1800.

2. “Scientific Revolution” MSN Encarta. 2007.

12
3. Modern Western Civilisation 7: The Scientific Revolution of the 17
Century. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/lect/mod07.html)

4. Grant, Edward. The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle

Ages: Their Religious, Institutional, and Intellectual Contexts. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1996.

5. Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution, (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr.,

1996)

6. Allen G. Debus, Man and Nature in the Renaissance, (Cambridge:

Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1978)

7. Bala, Dialogue of Civilizations in the Birth of Modern Science, 2006

8. Biographical sketches of Pascal at the University of St Andrews

website: http://www-groups.dcs.st-
and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Pascal.html

9. Biography of Linnaeus at Berkley:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html

10. Biography of Lavoisier at ScienceWorld:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Lavoisier.html

11. George Saliba on the influence of Arabic thought on European

Renaissance: Columbia University:
http://www.columbia.edu/~gas1/project/visions/case1/sci.1.html

12. Wikipedia

13. Biography of Newton at the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/newton_isaac.shtml

14. Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton,

(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1980), pp. 1-39.

13