Shapin throughout the book explores the many changes that have occurred and molded the modern world and the manner by which people have taken them by proving that science knowledge relies on history and is powered through social interaction and the philosophy of science.
Has a professor of History of Science at Harvard University. He has written many books including A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in the Seventeenth-Century England (1994), The Scientific Life (2008), and Never Pure (2010). Critics of the The Scientific Revolution and some of his writings argue that being a historian he concentrates more on the manner in which natural philosophers comprehend themselves to be building knowledge, than concentrating on the worth of the process of science. Thus making him receive a lot of criticism and unacceptance from “real scientists”. Shapin being a university professor has written many scientific articles for the New Yorker and London Review of Books in addition to his many books. I found he obtained the information used to write the book from careful research via manuscripts, documents, and secondary sources. He indicates the specifics of where he got his materials in footnotes and the bibliographic essay. The sources cited in The Scientific Revolution seem very reliable. Due to the fact that most if not all are from books published by reputable publishers such as University of Chicago Press, Cambridge University Press, Heinemann, among others. In addition, the sources used in the books are peer-reviewed journal articles from such as the British Journal of History of Science. He used his sources with care and discrimination to ensure that only related information was added to support his arguments. In this regard, he does not decorate the work to distort facts, but uses the …show more content…
Unlike many philosophy of science books that are hard to comprehend, Shaplin’s The Scientific Revolution book is easier to read and provides examples from the natural world that readers are aware of. By putting the findings and opinions of scientists of the 16th and 17th century in new context, the book cleverly reveals the events that happened in history. Making the writing have life and also engaging to the reader. The book is divided into three sections: What was known with regard to the natural world, which talks about the historical scientific worldviews and the new scientific revolution knowledge. How the knowledge was obtained, which outlines the sources of information that made what was known to be known, and the tenacities the knowledge helped, which looks at the collaboration of the culture and religion with the new knowledge of science. The subsections build on each other and make the reader to easily understand what the book is all …show more content…
I also got a better grasp of the injustice during the 17th century in regards to the female population. Which were in a higher percentage than that of both men and children, but were not able to participate in the scientific culture since they were mostly illiterate and were not allowed to obtain formal education. Generally, I learned that history shapes the present and the future more than we give it credit to.
I would recommend it to any student interested in learning about Scientific Revolution. Because it provides a good introduction to Scientific Revolution period for a reader with limited background in the philosophy and history of science; however it might prove difficult for a reader without any
Has a professor of History of Science at Harvard University. He has written many books including A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in the Seventeenth-Century England (1994), The Scientific Life (2008), and Never Pure (2010). Critics of the The Scientific Revolution and some of his writings argue that being a historian he concentrates more on the manner in which natural philosophers comprehend themselves to be building knowledge, than concentrating on the worth of the process of science. Thus making him receive a lot of criticism and unacceptance from “real scientists”. Shapin being a university professor has written many scientific articles for the New Yorker and London Review of Books in addition to his many books. I found he obtained the information used to write the book from careful research via manuscripts, documents, and secondary sources. He indicates the specifics of where he got his materials in footnotes and the bibliographic essay. The sources cited in The Scientific Revolution seem very reliable. Due to the fact that most if not all are from books published by reputable publishers such as University of Chicago Press, Cambridge University Press, Heinemann, among others. In addition, the sources used in the books are peer-reviewed journal articles from such as the British Journal of History of Science. He used his sources with care and discrimination to ensure that only related information was added to support his arguments. In this regard, he does not decorate the work to distort facts, but uses the …show more content…
Unlike many philosophy of science books that are hard to comprehend, Shaplin’s The Scientific Revolution book is easier to read and provides examples from the natural world that readers are aware of. By putting the findings and opinions of scientists of the 16th and 17th century in new context, the book cleverly reveals the events that happened in history. Making the writing have life and also engaging to the reader. The book is divided into three sections: What was known with regard to the natural world, which talks about the historical scientific worldviews and the new scientific revolution knowledge. How the knowledge was obtained, which outlines the sources of information that made what was known to be known, and the tenacities the knowledge helped, which looks at the collaboration of the culture and religion with the new knowledge of science. The subsections build on each other and make the reader to easily understand what the book is all …show more content…
I also got a better grasp of the injustice during the 17th century in regards to the female population. Which were in a higher percentage than that of both men and children, but were not able to participate in the scientific culture since they were mostly illiterate and were not allowed to obtain formal education. Generally, I learned that history shapes the present and the future more than we give it credit to.
I would recommend it to any student interested in learning about Scientific Revolution. Because it provides a good introduction to Scientific Revolution period for a reader with limited background in the philosophy and history of science; however it might prove difficult for a reader without any