reply to this post in 125 words or more.
The book starts by mentioning that there is no such thing as scientific revolution and this is because the author(s) believe that events that constitute scientific revolution can be told through an account of radical changes in the fundamental categories of thought. The circumstances that led to the creation of the modern world existed since the inception of the universe but human beings could not see them. When the revolution started, it can be compared as putting on a new pair of spectacles that enabled human beings to see clearly how they can use the resources at their disposal to create the modern world we see today.
Scientific revolution is connected with tradition and by studying the different traditions; the concept of scientific revolution was established. The term scientific revolution was never in use until in 1939 when it was coined by Alexander Koyre. In 1954, the term scientific revolution was used as a main title in two books written in the opposite ends of the historiographical spectrum. To say that there is no such thing as scientific revolution, the author(s) are only trying to communicate that those things that we believe are scientific revolution were in existence and the name scientific revolution was coined to refer to all of them. What we believe to be scientific revolution existed as beliefs and traditions of particular people from the 16th century to 20th century. On the other hand Thomas Kuhn, in the paradigm model believes that scientific revolution existed and happens in a cycle of four steps (Shapin, 1996).
Shapin, S. (2008). Introduction. In The Scientific Revolution (2008). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from http://www.monoskop.org/images/1/13/Shapin_Steven_… Revolution.pdf