Science and History: An Evaluation by a Chemical Theorist

Author: Allen G. Debus
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2000-05-01
Features: Science and History systematically elaborates the author's own ideas on the history of science, while also integrating the results of his teaching in history at Harvard University and the University of Chicago. Debus, through extensive research and analysis, found that the Scientific Revolution could not be simply seen as a conflict between the two aforementioned forces, as there was a third significant force at play. This third force was the mechanistic natural philosophy and its practitioners. On one hand, the mechanists fiercely criticized the Aristotelian tradition dominant in universities at the time. On the other hand, they resolutely opposed the mechanistic school, which also vehemently attacked the Aristotelian tradition. Both mechanists and mechanistic natural philosophers were advocates of the new science. Moreover, in the early stages of the Scientific Revolution, the influence of mechanistic natural philosophy far surpassed that of mechanism. So, what were the main differences between mechanistic natural philosophy and mechanism? Simply put, in terms of how nature was perceived, mechanism viewed the universe as a machine, believing that everything in the world moved deterministically according to the laws of mechanical motion. In contrast, mechanistic natural philosophy regarded the universe as a crucible, arguing that everything in the world underwent chemical changes without exception. In terms of the evaluation and verification of knowledge, mechanism emphasized intersubjectivity, requiring that the knowledge subject be able to repeat arguments or observe the same results among themselves. Mechanistic natural philosophy, however, emphasized subjective intuition, requiring that the knowledge subject's subjective experiences be consistent.