How did the approach to science during the middle ages change during the scientific revolution?

Answer 1

The Scientific Revolution got its name from historian Alexandre Koyré in 1939. He used the term to describe a time during the Renaissance when scientists took a radical new direction in their work, basing it on empirical observation and statistical analysis. He gave the date for its beginning as 1543, during which year books on astronomy by Nicolaus Copernicus and on anatomy by Andreas Vesalius were published. This theory takes the view that earlier approaches to science were based primarily on superstition and tradition. So, from this point of view, science moved from superstition and tradition to empirical observation and mathematical analysis with the Scientific Revolution.

There are also other theories that science of the Renaissance was merely a continuation of medieval science, and that while the Renaissance works were fundamental in their fields, the underlying scientific theory that brought them about was already centuries old. This happens to be my own personal view.

The modern approach to science is referred to as the scientific method. This approach originated with Muslim scientists such as Alhazen (965-1040 AD) during the Golden Age of Islam, was further developed in Europe by Roger Bacon (1214-1294) and others of his age, and was brought closer to a finished state by René Descartes (1594-1650). One of the important developments underlying this in Europe was the Condemnations of 1210-1277, which freed European science from scholastic dogma and made empirical observation and statistical analysis important. So, I think the historic record supports my view.

Part of the reason I hold my view is based on a study of medieval and renaissance inventions and improvements based on imported technology. After the initial shock of the Age of Migrations, which ended about half way through the Early Middle Ages, medieval people started inventing things in earnest. For an example of things medieval people invented we might name the chimney and fireplace, which were unknown in ancient times. Other examples include the button, used as a fastener, the artesian well, the blast furnace, and eyeglasses. We do not know precisely who the inventors were, as medieval inventors tended toward anonymity, but that the rate of invention can be studied and documented. What I found was that the rate of invention of the Middle Ages increased after about 1350, about the time the Renaissance began, but decreased again after about 1450, about the time the Middle Ages ended, back to what it had been during much of the Middle Ages, as measured in (subjectively) important inventions versus size of population.

Another part of the reason I hold my view is that the Middle Ages seems objectively to have been significantly less superstitious and more rational than the Renaissance. We could take witch hunts as an example. Belief in witchcraft was legally considered a superstition under the laws of Charlemagne, and burning a witch was considered capital murder. Though witches were prosecuted under other medieval legal systems, they were not hunted. The first inquisitions aimed at witches began just about the time the Renaissance started. The first book on how to recognize and deal with witches appeared after the Middle Ages ended, and with it came the first actual witch hunts, in which whole populations were subjected to examination and possible prosecution. The estimates I have seen are that during Middle Ages, the number people were executed for witchcraft averaged about one per year in the continent of Europe, but during two hundred years after the Middle Ages ended the average was about sixty per year, or more.

Clearly, I regard the Scientific Revolution as the scholarly equivalent of the urban myth.