Q: Analyze how political, religious, and social factors effected the works of natural philosophers from 1500-1700.
The era from 1500-1700 was known as the scientific revolution; during this time, natural philosophers, or scientists, provided a new outlook on life through findings from the development of new laws, theories, and orders of experimentation. They felt that the best way to find truth was through mathematics, philosophy, and experiments. New societies and academies were established and sponsored to help advance the studies. Most scientists, like Francis Bacon, found that the goal for scientific experimentation was to improve human life with knowledge, but the rest of society didn’t entirely share this view (doc. 4). Throughout this revolution, while the work of natural philosophers was benefitted from political leaders, it was negatively altered by religious leaders and influence, and challenged by social norms.
Many political leaders of the time saw the new discoveries to be beneficial to their states. Jean-Baptiste Colbert, for example, had an optimistic viewpoint on science, and found it in his interest as the financial minister of France to use science to maintain the glory, happiness, and splendor of France (doc. 11). Following the lead of his financial advisor, Louis XIV made a point of sponsoring the work of natural philosophers (doc.10). Together, Louis and Colbert established academies of science and philosophy in order to advance their country. Henry Oldenbury, secretary of the English Royal Society, also found it in his interest to support science in order to benefit his country. Oldenbury’s attitude toward the studies was that truth and knowledge through philosophy led to the greatest benefit for human welfare, and that the best way to achieve that status was through friendship and setting aside political views or preconceptions (doc.6). The extreme support from political leaders meant that scientists’ work was fostered and was assisted by political and financial support.
When religious leaders and religious influence came into contact with natural philosophers’ work, it was often influenced negatively by threats. Nicholas Copernicus was one of the earlier scientist who desperately wanted his work to be recognized and accepted for its truth. As a figure in the beginning of the revolution dealing with extremely controversial topics, he needed to appeal to those with a conservative and reserved viewpoint such as the Pope or devout religious people. In dedicating his work On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres to Pope Paul III, he attempted to achieve acceptance by asking the pope, who held a lot of power and control, to recognize that the work was true and to help convince people to see that as well (doc. 1). On a different point of view, Giovanni Ciampoli, an Italian monk, actually reached out to Galileo to possibly alter his work and keep Christian beliefs and values intact. He warned Galileo that people would not accept his work, and that he ought to refer to other monks or the Pope for help with interpreting the matters in an appropriate way (doc. 3). Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher who understood the aims of religious leaders who would have a major effect on the spread of his ideas when he acknowledged in his work Leviathon, that if the findings, whether or not true, conflicted with the interests of a ruler’s, they would be shut down (doc 7). Most religious leaders saw science as acceptable with limited freedom, such as John Calvin, who was able to see the benefit of science for human welfare, like political leaders did, as long as it was divinely focused (doc. 2). Religious influence threatened the validity of the scientists’ work.
Social norms from this era challenged scientists’ work and made it difficult for the studies to advance. Something Ciampoli’s letter also addressed was that people are still heavily under the influence of the church, whether they agreed with its views or not; If a scientist stepped out of line and ended up offending the church, they would be judged and criticized by the people too - not just the church (doc. 3). As a result, philosophers had to be extremely cautious and careful with what they decided to publish. Their freedom was limited. Another way their work was challenged was by the sponsors. While they did help the philosophers by sponsoring and providing financial support, this also made the philosophers feel obligated to include their sponsor’s opinion in their work. Scientists felt under pressure to please their sponsors, because if they didn’t, their work would no longer be financed and probably be aborted. Marin Mersenne, a French monk and philosopher, wrote a letter to his sponsor that is a reliable source to show the negative effects of sponsorship, as Mersenne suggested that his sponsor change whatever he did not see as true (doc. 5). Because of sponsorship, the validity of work was once again compromised because the scientists felt threatened by whether or not their work would be continued or not. In addition to these problems, gender discrimination made it so that women had a hard time producing work in the field of science. Margaret Cavendish voiced her radical feelings of the social restrictions on women in her work Observations on Experimental Philosophy; she voiced her fear that her desire to open her own school of natural philosophy and attempts to create scientific work would be rejected because she is a woman (doc. 9). The gender discrimination caused women scientists to be socially and professionally limited, and made it difficult for them to produce genuine work.
During the scientific revolution, political leaders fostered scientific work, religious leaders altered it, and social norms restricted it.
Many political leaders of the time saw the new discoveries to be beneficial to their states. Jean-Baptiste Colbert, for example, had an optimistic viewpoint on science, and found it in his interest as the financial minister of France to use science to maintain the glory, happiness, and splendor of France (doc. 11). Following the lead of his financial advisor, Louis XIV made a point of sponsoring the work of natural philosophers (doc.10). Together, Louis and Colbert established academies of science and philosophy in order to advance their country. Henry Oldenbury, secretary of the English Royal Society, also found it in his interest to support science in order to benefit his country. Oldenbury’s attitude toward the studies was that truth and knowledge through philosophy led to the greatest benefit for human welfare, and that the best way to achieve that status was through friendship and setting aside political views or preconceptions (doc.6). The extreme support from political leaders meant that scientists’ work was fostered and was assisted by political and financial support.
When religious leaders and religious influence came into contact with natural philosophers’ work, it was often influenced negatively by threats. Nicholas Copernicus was one of the earlier scientist who desperately wanted his work to be recognized and accepted for its truth. As a figure in the beginning of the revolution dealing with extremely controversial topics, he needed to appeal to those with a conservative and reserved viewpoint such as the Pope or devout religious people. In dedicating his work On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres to Pope Paul III, he attempted to achieve acceptance by asking the pope, who held a lot of power and control, to recognize that the work was true and to help convince people to see that as well (doc. 1). On a different point of view, Giovanni Ciampoli, an Italian monk, actually reached out to Galileo to possibly alter his work and keep Christian beliefs and values intact. He warned Galileo that people would not accept his work, and that he ought to refer to other monks or the Pope for help with interpreting the matters in an appropriate way (doc. 3). Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher who understood the aims of religious leaders who would have a major effect on the spread of his ideas when he acknowledged in his work Leviathon, that if the findings, whether or not true, conflicted with the interests of a ruler’s, they would be shut down (doc 7). Most religious leaders saw science as acceptable with limited freedom, such as John Calvin, who was able to see the benefit of science for human welfare, like political leaders did, as long as it was divinely focused (doc. 2). Religious influence threatened the validity of the scientists’ work.
Social norms from this era challenged scientists’ work and made it difficult for the studies to advance. Something Ciampoli’s letter also addressed was that people are still heavily under the influence of the church, whether they agreed with its views or not; If a scientist stepped out of line and ended up offending the church, they would be judged and criticized by the people too - not just the church (doc. 3). As a result, philosophers had to be extremely cautious and careful with what they decided to publish. Their freedom was limited. Another way their work was challenged was by the sponsors. While they did help the philosophers by sponsoring and providing financial support, this also made the philosophers feel obligated to include their sponsor’s opinion in their work. Scientists felt under pressure to please their sponsors, because if they didn’t, their work would no longer be financed and probably be aborted. Marin Mersenne, a French monk and philosopher, wrote a letter to his sponsor that is a reliable source to show the negative effects of sponsorship, as Mersenne suggested that his sponsor change whatever he did not see as true (doc. 5). Because of sponsorship, the validity of work was once again compromised because the scientists felt threatened by whether or not their work would be continued or not. In addition to these problems, gender discrimination made it so that women had a hard time producing work in the field of science. Margaret Cavendish voiced her radical feelings of the social restrictions on women in her work Observations on Experimental Philosophy; she voiced her fear that her desire to open her own school of natural philosophy and attempts to create scientific work would be rejected because she is a woman (doc. 9). The gender discrimination caused women scientists to be socially and professionally limited, and made it difficult for them to produce genuine work.
During the scientific revolution, political leaders fostered scientific work, religious leaders altered it, and social norms restricted it.