University of Tehran Press Journal for the History of Science 1735-0573 23 2 2026 02 20 A Review of the Ideologies of the Scientific Revolution: The Rise and Fall of a Historiographical Concept, by Pietro Daniel Omodeo A Review of the Ideologies of the Scientific Revolution: The Rise and Fall of a Historiographical Concept, by Pietro Daniel Omodeo 283 290 106419 10.22059/jihs.2026.411817.371890 FA Mohammad Mahdi Shahbazi Gahroui Department of philosophy of science , Faculty of philosophy of science, sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran Journal Article 2026 02 23 The scientific revolution became one of the central themes of twentieth‑century history of science, widely regarded as a decisive turning point in the development of modern knowledge. According to the classic narrative, a fundamental rupture occurred in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries that transformed science into a new enterprise with distinct methodological and metaphysical foundations. This view held that modern science emerged in sharp contrast to earlier traditions. Two major historiographical approaches shaped this interpretation. Intellectual historians such as Alexandre Koyré emphasized conceptual and spiritual transformations. In contrast, materialist historians like Boris Hessen and Edgar Zilsel highlighted the social and economic forces—especially those linked to early capitalism—that shaped scientific change. With the rise of postmodern critiques, historians began questioning assumptions embedded in the modernist narrative, including linear progress, anachronistic judgments of past science, and the belief in a single universal trajectory of development. These critiques also exposed the Eurocentrism of the traditional account, which located scientific transformation exclusively in Western and Northern Europe while marginalizing other intellectual traditions. Although this critical turn opened new possibilities for understanding scientific change, it also introduced risks such as relativism, which can undermine explanations of scientific success. For this reason, many scholars advocate a middle‑ground approach that preserves the analytical value of the scientific revolution concept while integrating postmodern insights about plurality, context, and the limitations of grand narratives. This balanced perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of both continuity and transformation in the history of science. The scientific revolution became one of the central themes of twentieth‑century history of science, widely regarded as a decisive turning point in the development of modern knowledge. According to the classic narrative, a fundamental rupture occurred in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries that transformed science into a new enterprise with distinct methodological and metaphysical foundations. This view held that modern science emerged in sharp contrast to earlier traditions. Two major historiographical approaches shaped this interpretation. Intellectual historians such as Alexandre Koyré emphasized conceptual and spiritual transformations. In contrast, materialist historians like Boris Hessen and Edgar Zilsel highlighted the social and economic forces—especially those linked to early capitalism—that shaped scientific change. With the rise of postmodern critiques, historians began questioning assumptions embedded in the modernist narrative, including linear progress, anachronistic judgments of past science, and the belief in a single universal trajectory of development. These critiques also exposed the Eurocentrism of the traditional account, which located scientific transformation exclusively in Western and Northern Europe while marginalizing other intellectual traditions. Although this critical turn opened new possibilities for understanding scientific change, it also introduced risks such as relativism, which can undermine explanations of scientific success. For this reason, many scholars advocate a middle‑ground approach that preserves the analytical value of the scientific revolution concept while integrating postmodern insights about plurality, context, and the limitations of grand narratives. This balanced perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of both continuity and transformation in the history of science. https://jihs.ut.ac.ir/article_106419_8e3871549c5e330412d41f26abfdbb43.pdf