نوع مقاله : مروری
نویسنده
گروه فلسفه علم، دانشکده فلسفه علم،دانشگاه صنعتی شریف،تهران،ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
The scientific revolution was the most important topic in the history of science in the twentieth century, attracting the interest of many historians and philosophers. Its main idea was that sometime in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, a break occurred in the process of science that changed its path. It was as if, after that point, science turned into something else, or a new science was born, one that was seriously at odds with previous science in its methodological and metaphysical foundations. Intellectual historians like Alexandre Koyré, emphasizing the spiritual and mental dimension, and materialist historians like Boris Hessen and Edgar Zilsel, focusing on the social and economic aspects, have examined this transformation. With the rise of postmodern movements, space also opened up to critique the beliefs shaped under the influence of modernity, and later historians questioned the grand narrative of modernism about the history of science. Dogmas like a progressive view of history and judging the past by modern standards (anachronism) were among the problems that plagued modern-era historians and prevented unbiased scientific research. By recognizing these kinds of deficiencies in historiography and attempting to break free from ideology, the concept of the scientific revolution was also revised and criticized. The idea that there was a historical break at some point in time that led to a fundamental division in science and provided the grounds for scientific progress independently of the scientific heritage of the past is one of the notions that came under severe criticism. Eurocentrism was also among the problems that critics addressed. The grand narrative of the scientific revolution belonged to a specific time and place. The center of this transformation was considered to be Western and Northern Europe, and the rest of the world was marginalized. Although the critique of the grand narrative of the scientific revolution provided new possibilities for historians, it also brought risks, including relativism. Consequently, presenting a middle-ground model is necessary to preserve the positive aspects of the concept of the scientific revolution and to benefit from the possibilities offered by postmodern approaches.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)