Talk:Scientific Revolution

Vague sentence gave me pause while reading.

I was reading the "Ancient and Medieval background" section when I lost my reading flow by this sentence; "Some scholars have noted a direct tie between "particular aspects of traditional Christianity" and the rise of science." I Just find it so vague, I'm not sure what they're trying to say. What scholars? What aspects? And what do you mean by "direct tie"? Right now it sounds like it's glossing over a lot, it shouldn't be too hard to pin down exactly which christian traditions we're talking about, and what they did. Maybe even just one noteworthy one to solidify this? Anyone else think this sentence is too vague? I looked at one of the sources cited, and it wasn't clear either, but listed some academics of note that might be worth looking into. Also, the "Seeking peace..." source mentions that "the scholars differ considerably in highlighting the aspects of Christianity that encouraged modern science and how that encouragement functioned", and if I'm being honest, this makes me wonder how strong the claim even is. I feel like consensus would make for a stronger claim.

TL;DR, this sentence is distractingly vague CptnBlueberry (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Should the "Criticism" section become a "Terminology", "Historiography" or "Concept" section?

Like other periods that historians have divided history into (e.g. Classical Antiquity, Dark Ages, Middle Ages, High Middle Ages, Age of Discovery, Renaissance, Age of Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution etc. etc. etc.) there is a fascinating debate among historians about whether the "Scientific Revolution" is a proper unit for historical description and analysis.

For the Dark Ages, this debate is handled with a completely separate article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

For the Middle Ages, it's handled with a "Terminology and periodisation" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages#Terminology_and_periodisation

For the Renaissance, it's handled with a "Historiography" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance#Historiography

For the Age of Discovery, this is handled with a "Concept" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery#Concept

As a fairly new Wikipedian, I would be interested in feedback on this. Is there any kind of consensus about the best way to include this material? Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

After thinking a a bit about this for a while, I think the best way forward is to have two sections in the article:

1) A "Terminology" section after the lead, and

2) A "Historiography" section towards the end of the article (which can replace the "Criticism" section).

I welcome any thoughts about this from editors, however. Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is super unencyclopedic and doesn't provide any actual information about what the Scientific Revolution actually was. Any ideas for an alternative lead? VidanaliK (talk to me) 01:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Alleged disproof of Ptolemy and geostaticism generally

Mickey555Mouse (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

See Thomas Kuhn. ~2026-37334-38 (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thomas Kuhn's full name was "Thomas Samuel Kuhn".

Disjointed passages are appearing under the caption "Ptolemy is wrong". The American Indians from Siberia did not say "Ptolemy is wrong" as they moved into America. The Viking landing in Baffin Island and Newfoundland did not cause the Vikings to say "Geostaticism and Ptolemy are all wrong". The alleged source is Thomas S. Kuhn, who has a conflict of interest. The Vikings were in Canada in about 1021, without saying that they had proved Ptolemy wrong in astronomy. The coming to the notice of Europeans of Australia and New Zealand is not said to be science or a disproof of Ptolemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickey555Mouse (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

In 1492, Rodrigo de Triana did not say "Ptolemy is wrong" or anything about astronomy. He said "Tierra, tierra". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickey555Mouse (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Why does Kuhn have "a conflict of interest"?

The European encounter with the Americas pre-dated the encounter with Australasia by a century.
Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The Viking encounter with Newfoundland pre-dated the coming to the notice of Europeans of Australia by many centuries. This is already noted. Mickey555Mouse (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Pythagoras, Philolaus, Aristarchus and Seleucus all put forward systems with a moving earth long before the long quotation of Vespucci's, in the section entitled "Ptolemy is wrong". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickey555Mouse (talk • contribs) 10:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Columbus never realized he had discovered a continent completely unknown to Europeans. The first record we have of a European realizing that was Vespucci, over 10 years later (in 1503). The first map showing the Americas as a separate continent wasn't until 1508. Researchers think the Norse were only at L'Anse aux Meadows for a few years and the site was not a permanent settlement but just a temporary boat repair facility.
Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

"Irreversible" in the lead section

Is it accurate to describe the scientific revolution as irreversible, as is done in the lead section of the article? It seems to me that this is an unnecessary (and possibly inaccurate) characterization. ~2026-32490-45 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2026

Change the link for 'Publication of Principia Mathematica' in the key events section from Principia Mathematica by Whitehead & Russell to Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Newton. Borzecki102 (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)