The Scientific Revolution: Crash Course History of Science #12

So, what exactly is a scientific revolution? And are they more than just moments in time Historians use to mark the beginning and ending of things through time? In this episode we'll look into some ideas and people named Nick and how they fit into science and the search to understand ourselves and our place in the universe.
***
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Mark Brouwer, Glenn Elliott, Justin Zingsheim, Jessica Wode, Eric Prestemon, Kathrin Benoit, Tom Trval, Jason Saslow, Nathan Taylor, Divonne Holmes à Court, Brian Thomas Gossett, Khaled El Shalakany, Indika Siriwardena, Robert Kunz, SR Foxley, Sam Ferguson, Yasenia Cruz, Eric Koslow, Caleb Weeks, Tim Curwick, Evren Türkmenoğlu, Alexander Tamas, D.A. Noe, Shawn Arnold, mark austin, Ruth Perez, Malcolm Callis, Ken Penttinen, Advait Shinde, Cody Carpenter, Annamaria Herrera, William McGraw, Bader AlGhamdi, Vaso, Melissa Briski, Joey Quek, Andrei Krishkevich, Rachel Bright, Alex S, Mayumi Maeda, Kathy & Tim Philip, Montather, Jirat, Eric Kitchen, Moritz Schmidt, Ian Dundore, Chris Peters, Sandra Aft, Steve Marshall
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support Crash Course on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids

[@LisenToLevel]

Bro I love Crash Course Ive earned more from you folks then I have in all my schooling. Im 26 now still watching your videos, for fun (while kicking back a few beers) you have, and continue to make entertaining and informative content that I share. Everyone with the ability to contribute to keeping this wholesome unbiased content going do, because this, is one of the truly altruistic channels on youtube. They do this because they love teaching, not money or fame. Keep up the good work the Whole CrashCourse Team, your doing good in the world.

[@OfMiceAndMegabytes]

So glad he mentioned the Mayans and Indian astronomers. Many civilizations already knew about heliocentrism

[@htoodoh5770]

Mayan already knew of Heliocentrism?

[@The_Big_Chris_]

Who else would be happy if they made a Crash Course Law?

[@moondust2365]

Christian Zdravko That would definitely help for legal support especially for Copyright, Fair Use, Plagiarism, and Spam. Also, it would help any College students studying law.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

Whose law? Law, unlike science, differs both across the world and across time (and this latter does matter even to our current world sometimes). US law? Common law? Civil law?...

[@oskarhenriksen]

At first, I thought you meant a law for Crash Course, or a law by Crash Course...

[@moondust2365]

Mendicant Bias Most likely all of those, as well as the history of law. Although for International purposes any laws common to all countries or laws by the UN would be useful.

[@BTheBlindRef]

You don't have to study specific laws. There is a ton of study about how law is constructed, the various philosophies of how authority is gained and wielded, how those various authority philosophies inform law creation and application, and so forth. You could have a whole series easily that studies how hunter gatherer communal, agrarian, authoritarian (dictatorial, oligarchical, and monarchical), autocratic, true democratic, and representative democratic governments all build legal structures to support the tribe or state. You could talk about the differences between parliamentary and federal systems and the strengths and weaknesses of both. You can talk about different judicial philosophies regarding precedent and how it is set and followed. And so forth. There is plenty to discuss without having to get into specifics on any particular set of laws for any particular country except as examples to illustrate the broader points.

[@angelica3744]

I think it's important to emphasize that who gets a name check in history books is also a product of the historians' personal biases (conscious and unconscious). Really love this series, thank you.

'Cause he was super dead. I scared the cat with my laugh.

[@nothisispatrick4644]

"NOBODY EXPECTS THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION"

[@ProfessorSyndicateFranklai]

Our chief weapon is the scientific method, that and a natural curiosity for the wor- two! Our two main weapons are the scientific method, and curiosity, and rigor in analysis- three! Our three main weapons are the method, curiosity, rigor, and nice beards - Amongst our weaponry...

[@isamekailmahmud9302]

No this is you

[@Eastmarch2]

Nice beards lol

[@TheTariqibnziyad]

Francis Lai you seem to be not expecting the mexican inquisition

[@kellenbrinton5637]

Well done.

[@AbbeyRoadkill1]

Aristarchus has never gotten the recognition he deserves.

[@ethanrivera1907]

In time he will....... maybe

[@ananashmusic8761]

Crash Course is amazing! There is so much information. I'm so impressed at how knowledgeable the creators are. Love it!!

[@DuranmanX]

If a scientist makes a major discovery in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it cause a revolution?

[@MortRotu]

Depends who they tell about it, and/or how big the bang is...

[@feynstein1004]

Nup

[@marcowen1506]

only if they publish

[@talytasbarcelos]

Adrian Duran you have my respect

[@TheddunTOSS]

No.

[@chayimadinaandyael]

I really like this critical and sometimes alternative way of looking at science and history. People frown upon these periods, considering them backward and dark, without understanding that because of those times, and the people that lay the foundation for the knowledge we have, we have reached the scientific advances we have today.

[@amandasmith593]

I can't believe you missed an opportunity to say 'Ptolemaniacs'.

[@alicev5496]

*kuhn gets mentioned* *gets flashbacks to all my history and sociology classes*

[@fromthe4621]

Imagine all of the amazing art and science that was cultivated around the world that was lost due to war or time

[@vincivedivicilextalionas4036]

Ahh a special treat. Thank you!!

[@adamhosek1620]

I think it's really weird to present the Copernicus' home country on the map with nowadays borders, even with the EU countries being distinguished... why? Poland looked nothing like the red thing on that map when Copernicus was copernicing! Love that series, by the way, you're doing a great job :)

[@08viperstrike]

According to a source I've read, Copernicus presented his book to Pope Paul III, who received it cordially. On Galileo, though, it says that had the issue remained purely scientific, the Church wouldn't have bat an eye. Yet he kept in asserting it as a matter of theology. He rejected the middle ground presented by Cardinal Bellarmine which was to uphold a heliocentric theory as much as he'd like just don't force the Church to reinterpret scripture for it. Guess what happened.

[@oskarhenriksen]

Galileo also basically made fun of the Pope's stance. In his book, a dialogue, he let it be voiced by a guy named Simplicius - or "Simpleton". The Galileo story is complicated, but the whole story was made worse by the fact that Galileo was a bit of a douchebag.

[@JenCoYT]

The play The History Boys deals with this idea of how history is written. This video reminded me of that.

[@monochlome]

you know what really butters my eggroll? a new crash course episode

[@damienro0]

Loving it, cant wait for the next one everytime!

[@maticegiela7868]

Man, I love this channel!

[@TeachingandLearningOnline]

Excellent! Makes me nostalgic for the 6/7 years my husband and I spent doing history of science at Duke. Sigh ... a favorite topic! Especially this era.

[@deniseglines8239]

Wow, so very good. Thank you!

[@PinkChucky15]

One of my favorite periods in history :-)

[@nathanmckenzie904]

Love CC!

[@leochen9952]

I learn here more than I do in science class.

[@jakewalters9038]

Hank, I just want to say Thank you. You are my inspiration to learn.

[@ShaedeReshka]

This is such a great episode because it questions the narrative that so many have been given. Huge props to Crash Course for appreciating the nuance here. Also, huge props for undermining the idea that the scientific revolution was some sort of break from religion. If that happened anywhere, it was with Charles Darwin, and even that seems a little overstated. On the other hand, you could have done a whole episode on Kuhn to hash out exactly what he meant by "crisis science" as distinct from the historical "scientific revolution". It was summarized in brief, but then kind of collapsed into the old narrative that it was questioning. We might see Kuhn again later, though. He's a great starting point for teaching the philosophy of science.

[@Hammy750]

Any one else here cause of online classes because of corona

[@vincivedivicilextalionas4036]

Love the history courses!!

[@jayasuryangoral-maanyan3901]

Physician/economist who made important contributions to astronomy. My new role model

[@isamekailmahmud9302]

Alt-Centrist NeoBuddhist-AnarchoBonapartist yeah

[@smighterman]

They are getting creative and creative with their intro song

[@karinabaldeon3703]

When i learned more here than in my 'ethics and science' class. 😅

[@blissconnect_]

Knowledge overload

[@jankostanjevec5315]

Is there any good literature on Oresme and his influence (or lack thereof)?

[@kyleh8505]

Finally a scientific revolution episode

[@ruttothongtit1491]

If you can add ENG subtitle in video for foreign student like me to learn more science vocabs, would be thankful

[@DallasMay]

I understand you need to build a story in 12 minutes, but I think you grossly underestimate the importance of the printing press in all of this. Why do we know about Copernicus and now the other guys? Because Copernicus' work was copied thousands of times by his students via printing press. The other guys wrote their stuff too early. They didn't get that. That's what really started the scientific revolution.

[@jamiedorsey4167]

This

[@izzywilson9623]

Dallas May True that! The printing press was so important to not only science, but religion and culture!

[@lubnabeary7163]

u should work at crash course cuz ur smart

[@ultrasuperkiller]

Jamie Dorsey thank you for adding to the disscussion, wouldn’t be the same without your insightful comment!

[@JAYZ999]

Dallas May absolutely agree. It wasn’t really about Copernicus as much as it was Gutenberg, sucks that he just mentioned him for a second.

[@yasminraveh599]

Thanks! I have an exam on the Socilogy of science this Wednesday, so this is great.

[@tanyarodriguez9899]

This video and #11 are missing from the Course playlist. Just wanted you to know!

[@lubnabeary7163]

I wish there was a transcript, crash course if u see this, plz consider making transcripts.

[@jaywashington2196]

Will there be a video or mention about Newton vs Leibniz in calculus

[@crashcourse]

Ohhh... ohhhh... just you wait :D - Nick J.

[@DavidChipman]

That sounds like a "Yes", Nick J.

[@Haliya.]

CrashCourse i thought this was about Newton or Galileo...

[@iOSMinecraft120]

just you waaaaaiiitt!

[@Killua2001]

I kinda believe Newton set English mathematics back compared to Leibniz. I can draw a straight line from Leibniz to Euler, but Newton's accomplishments besides the rote "he invented calculus" all relate more to physics imo. Meanwhile we still even use Leibniz's original notation! I always find it sad Newton so frequently gets top billing between the two.

[@aspiahmacaurog4354]

The Scientific Revolution took place in Europe towards the end of the renaissance period and continued through the late 18th century. Also scientific revolution served a way for our ancestors, scientists,and philosophers to discover that the sun is the center of our solar system in which we believe until today.

[@mulllhausen]

8:06 that actually sounds correct - the sun and the planets all do orbit their center of gravity. i'm not sure if that point lies within the sun or not. it probably does. but it wouldn't be the centre of the sun.

[@asdmax6323]

you are the best on KZbin

[@jessephillips1233]

French and English philosophers could argue via LiveJournal. The early 2000's were a heady time.

[@adricortesia]

Things like gravitational waves, the Higgs Boson or Quantum Computing are awesome and they change the way we see things in the big picture. But they don't change the way I do grocery shopping or clean my apartment. So those tacked on "revolution" labels are just that and more for historians than the normal dude on the street. Sure in today's society it's easier to access information about the newest, latest and hottest scientific achievement but it takes time to somehow implement those new ideas in every day life stuff .. even in today's fast-paced lives of ours.

[@QPA]

such nerd. I love it!

[@victorious4701]

People should really stop using the word "nerd" as an insult. All that word really means is "hungry for knowledge". So in other words - in today's culture it's better to be a thug than a nerd, well done society... well done... (I dunno if you did, you just reminded me of those guys)

[@hog2264]

Anyone else studying for the regents?

[@f1nger605]

Waiting with bated breath for Kepler and Brahe: the real heroes of heliocentrism, as far as I'm concerned. Copernicus did the philosophizing, but Johannes and Tycho did the work of actually measuring the movements of the planets and explaining them with a mathematical model.

[@oskarhenriksen]

He just said we'll meet Kepler next time

[@f1nger605]

Oskar Henriksen - I know. And I said I'm looking forward to it.

[@ybizapakemonow5646]

thanks

[@oPassionSpaz]

Finally !

[@TheGeneralGrievous19]

Secod we must remeber great minds of Middle Ages that leaded the scientific progress - Adelrard of Bath, William of Conches, School of Toledo, School of Salerno, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Witelon of Wrocław, Jordanus de Nemore, Gerard of Brussels, Rogerius, Theoderic Borgonini, John of Sacrobosco, Jean Buridan, Albert of Saxony, Oxford Calculators, Giovanni di Casali, Modino di'Luzzi, Thomas Bradwardine, John Cantius, Albert of Brudzewo. God bless You! ♱

[@failedleopard3685]

But surely it isn't just a matter of things that cannot be explained, but also a new discovery that overturns the old information?

[@BaldingClamydia]

We do know that the point we orbit ISN'T the center of the sun, because of gravity's interaction and Jupiter's size. (BUT it is so close to the center of the sun that it doesn't matter in anything but the most delicate equations).

[@piratecheese13]

hype for brahe's best student

[@himynameisnickolas]

I knew I missed my true calling as a world renowned astronomer!

[@Frahamen]

Map is a be decieving 1500 Poland =/= 2018 Poland. Poland-Lithuania was Stronk!

[@Gew219]

Frahamen 1500 was decades before unified Poland-Lithuania.

[@Carewolf]

Yeah, it should have been a different blob moved east and inland.

[@Frahamen]

Christian, While the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is indeed only established by the Union of Lublin in July 1569, the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had been in a de facto personal union since 1386 with the marriage of the Polish queen Hedwig and Lithuania's Grand Duke Jogaila, who was crowned King jure uxoris Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland. Thanks, Wikipedia.

[@ethanrivera1907]

Snooot

[@Number16BusShelter]

still waiting for that crash course deep fried everything

[@pkranchtorreon]

Archemedes deserves attention

[@sammjust2233]

Aristarchus of Samos was clearly a time traveler

[@BenjiSun]

his name is Hiro Nakamura. he went back in time to save the cheerleader.

[@danielquinones1771]

At 10:22 the captions say "the nineteenth century" but Green says twentieth. Wikipedia says the twentieth so I'm gonna go with that.

[@arizlotnick1258]

awesome

[@Tfin]

But, other than scale, he was right about the sun not quite being the center of the solar system. Not that it was what he said, but there's an offset, with bodies revolving around their shared center of mass, rather than the center of mass of the bigger one.

[@ericmonreal8425]

Alguien me pasa la traducción en castellano, le doy follow en todas las redes sociales. Cordialmente

[@Roflmaolinde]

Kuhn, finally!!

[@user-ce1uy9vf2n]

I have a test tomorrow on this, well is not about this but whatever xd

[@DeanLovett]

Error with "History of Science Playlist". Episodes "History of Science #11" and "History of Science #12" are not included in the History of Science playlist, even though #10 and #13 are included.

[@alphameetpatel]

Good.

[@mickmickymick6927]

It's funny how Hank cites 'Nullius in Verba' (on the word of no one, i.e. take no one's word for it), but crash course never cites its sources and always expects us to just take their word for it. Just like how pre-scientific revolution, authorities expected people to just take the word of people like Aristotle, Galen, etc.

[@mickmickymick6927]

They often say things like 'a common explanation for this is...' or 'Historians often say...', these types of generalisations shouldn't be acceptable. They don't have to cite every sentence but they should be at least listing books in the description which have influenced the views expressed in the video, we should demand nothing less from a channel which will be influencing thousands of viewers' worldviews. It will also allow anyone interested to pursue the topic deeper.

[@BrianHutzellMusic]

I view CC as a starting point. Obviously the subjects they take on can’t be fully covered in a few dozen 10-minute segments. Citations and/or bibliography for further reading would be a nice addition to the video info. Some CC subjects and episodes have done a better job of this than others. (Who remembers John’s “Links in the doobly-doo” from CC World History, for example?)

[@craigmooring2091]

I think it is inaccurate to convey the impression that Ptolemy believed his system described a physical reality, that it had anything at all to do with what we would call astrophysics. When you read the Almagest you see that he makes it very clear that he is merely seeking to "save the phenomena": present a geometric model that corresponds to what is actually seen and can, therefore, be used to predict relative positions of Sun, Moon, and planets against the background of the apparently fixed stars. He knew from comparing observational data from northern and southern observers, that the Earth was a globe, but could be treated as a point for his purposes. He briefly discussed the possibility that the Earth rotates on its axis rather than the cosmos revolving around it and decided that it made no difference because the appearances from the Earth would be the same in either case. It is also inaccurate to convey the impression that the Bible teaches the Ptolemaic (or any) system of astronomy. It uses phenomenological language (as we all do) like "sunrise" or "corners of the earth", but it also describes the Earth as being "hung in space". People like Aquinas imposed the 'physics' of Aristotle on the Bible, which led to the foolish, non-Biblical, syncretistic dogmatism of the ossified, monolithic Roman Catholic Church, which opposed both the Reformation and the science of the Renaissance.

[@timeaesnyx]

Craig Mooring thank you for the food for thought

[@disruptivetimes8738]

You know its a good video if the like / dislike ratio is nearly 100 / 1. Hank for President!

[@Chxmpainn]

finna prepare for these Regents Monday 💀

[@cjrose4905]

yoooo rt

[@Desaved]

I'm a Patron supporter and I want to see more women and POC doing these. Now that I know you're doing them in Montana, I guess the latter is out of the question! But, I still want the former!

[@lindavilmaole5003]

we realized that a scientific revolution has taken place in such a time, in such a place after looking back and seeing that CHANGES in existing ideas about some aspects in nature has occurred.

[@skylight6820]

Linda Vilma Ole The Scientific Revolution was a series of events that marked the emergence of modern science during the early modern period, when developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology including human anatomy and chemistry transformed the views of society about nature.The Scientific Revolution took place in Europe towards the end of the Renaissance period and continued through the late 18th century. this video is very nice to know about it.

[@niajeon6107]

Whenever I hear the word "revolution", blood, chaos, violence, and war would always come to mind. But after some research, I know now that it can also be associated with other things. In the video, historians, philosophers, etc., debated whether scientific revolution took place in our history or not. Well for me, whether it took place or not, the fact that their discoveries CHANGED their views and SHAPED our world today is already REVOLUTIONARY. From the first philosophers up until today's scientists, they did all revolutionary things that made us humans knowledgeable and understand more about our world and universe. Nicole Oresme, Nicolaus Copernicus, Ptolemy, Aristarchus of Amos, Aristotle, etc., did all revolutionary things. Even if some of the philosophers ideas or theories were inaccurate, they still contributed meaningfully in the history of science which not all man can do and I consider it revolutionary.

[@gesamalagar2576]

Scientific revolution wherein the theory of one philosopher changes when another philosopher discover much and better explaination to that certain theory. Science is evolving from time to time or in other word Scientific Revolution refers to historical changes in thought & belief, to changes in social & institutional organization.and because it changes from time to time It provides an excellent exercise for thinking about how historical periodizations emerge, develop, and mature. These video is amazing 👏👏

[@klay3994]

This video makes me think about what is Science in early early days what they call it? how did they discovered it? how they change it? what will be Science in near future generation? but overall this video is amazing. Science is what we relay on right now. in my on opinion.

[@janalmamogcaraoador3287]

"There is no such thing as constant except for CHANGE." This lines make me believe that change really happens over time. The scientific revolution implies that as time goes by, there are so many discovered knowledges that make the past ideas revolve to a new one. Maybe, it was being updated over time. Say for instance, the idea on the cosmos in which according to the past philosophers and scientists like Ptolomy, his theory says that the center of the universe is the Earth knows as the Geocentric Model of the Cosmos. It was very influential that everyone has believed and accepted over many centuries. Until it was Nicolas Copernicus who proposed his theory about the HELIOCENTRIC View of the Universe in which he claimed that the Sun is the center of the Cosmos and the earth was revolving around it over a year and rotate on its axis 24 hours a day. He was afraid at first because the views of people relies in the ptolomic idea and his own was directly opposite to those view. Somehow, what catch my attention also was ARISTARCHUS who live long before than Copernicus also presented the idea of Heliocentric but he not know so much in the study of science whivmch, if we are going to think, he should have taken the high credit on this view. It is just a way that Copernicus was in much interest by the people and resulted to forgot ARISTARCHUS contribution in science. Furthermore, the scientific revolution only give as glimpse that as time goes to pass by, many knowledges had evolve and accepted ideas from the past was replaced by new more accurate one or improved by the preceeding time.

[@Garland41]

So, you brought up Kuhn, but I believe next or soon you will deal with Michel Foucault, specifically his work titled _The Archaeology of Knowledge_ in which he understands the sciences as discursive systems. But Foucault goes beyond that; if we look at Math and Physics, then we notice that both are discursive systems that have had Kuhnian paradigm shifts; however, there is the problematic of the unification of the two discourses: Math and Physics. If one looks at the Physics of Mechanics as given by Isaac Newton, then we notice that Newton's system is based upon the assumptions of Euclidean geometry which itself was being updated and formulated differently by types such as Descartes and his Cartesian plane (this is contemporarily know as a coordinate plane. However, Newton goes farther because while he requires the coordinate plane for the relations of objects given in the intuition of space he needs to confront the problem which was known as squaring the circle. The solution of squaring the circle was given nearly simultaneously by two brilliant persons, Newton and Leibniz, and this solution was itself named Calculus. So, the purpose of this comment is then to express the question in science as the unification of discursive systems: the connection of Geometry, Algebra, and Calculus to Physics. Of course the video mentioned that Newton was overturned by Einstein, but the details were left out that Newton had proposed as medium of Aether for which light travels through which Einstein disproved based on the Lorentz-Maxwell model experiment. However, the lesser known aspect of the overtune of Newtonian Physics came of this unity of discourse between Non-Euclidean mathematic of Riemann which was a complete disapproval of Euclidean Postulate No. 5. Now, I have mentioned Foucault, but I have barely anytime to understand his work as I have given myself the task of reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason; however, a name that hasn't been brought up, but the philosopher himself is seemingly a unification of Kuhn and Foucault is Gilles Deleuze with the co-authorship of Félix Guattari in their book _What Is Philosophy?_ in which they go beyond the task of Pre-philosophy to understand the pre-scientific and pre-artistic. For this is my main reason and source of the history of ability to do science and conceptual form of what science is as process and goal. A part of me knows that this series won't cover Gilles Deleuze is the book just mentioned, but I believe that no history of science can be complete without the simultaneous understanding of the unification and separation of philosophy and science. A great deal of the history of philosophy is to make it function as a science, for example, before the split of the science and philosophy as the form of natural philosophy, but after the split with analytic philosophy with Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore, as well as in continental philosophy with Edmund Husserl, and even in American Pragmatism with Charles Sanders Peirce; however, I am of the thought of Gilles Deleuze and Henri Bergson (Bergson who is very important in the discussion of Einstein which I hope this series won't leave out which was just covered in the brilliant new book by Jimena Canales _The Physicist and the Philosopher)_ who claim that philosophy and science are different. To demonstrate, here is a portion from Deleuze's book "The object of science is not concepts but rather functions that are presented as propositions in discursive systems. The elements of functions are called _functives._ A scientific notion is defined not by concepts but by functions or propositions. This is a very complex idea with many aspects, as can be seen already from the use to which it is put by mathematics and biology respectively. Nevertheless, it is this idea of the function which enables the sciences to reflect and communicate. Science does not need philosophy for these tasks. On the other hand, when an object--a geometrical space, for example--is scientifically constructed by functions, its philosophical concept, which is by no means given in the function must still be discovered." (pg. 117) Furthermore, I know this comment is long enough as it is and person from crash course itself will probably response at this point, I believe this paragraph summarizes the controversy which happened between the Philosopher Henri Bergson and Albert Einstein because while Einstein's theory of Relativity is brilliant, it's reliance on Riemannian Geometry in which space is curved means that there are problematic implications not only for previous physical systems, but that the empiricist model of knowledge is flawed in an extreme way. Locke and Hume argued that the only type of knowledge we could rely on was that of what we sensed, but know we have a system in which our senses are inaccurate in the type of space inhabit is problematic. So, long comment aside, from Kuhn to Foucault to Deleuze and Bergson, we have not only the problem of the history of science but its connection with other systems and repetitions.

[@jamiedorsey4167]

Maybe it should be called the "Scientific Incrementalism" instead

[@Azzarinne]

Not dramatic enough, I guess.

[@mihalyponyiczki1855]

hi I usually don't do this, but I think some of the stuff you said about Thomas Kuhn was misleading (not outright wrong, just not really perfect). His theory doesn't argue that a scientific revolutions always make us know more, or better, like your graph suggests, he even argued that for someone who studies scientific history it must be clear that other, older system, at their time tdid their work well. Also he actually explained it very well how these "revolutions" are not really that revolutionary, and they only really effect scientific communities in short term.

[@PatrickAllenNL]

Dumb question: How do we know and/or keep track of something/event/person? Who decides that? It's mindblowing.

[@PastPresented]

If it's a person like Copernicus, we mostly keep track of them by some random person deciding, years too late, that it would be good to know more about them, leading people to search through vast numbers of surviving records for tiny hints about them, in hope of retrospectively building up a coherent narrative from fragments.

[@MortRotu]

If it's a modern person it's a bit easier, for example a person could check (A guess based on the 'NL' in your user name) the Dutch national archives and census records, the hospital records attached to that name, your google profile info.... There is far more info available on you(or anybody else commenting here) than still exists for a historical figure like Copernicus or nearly any body else hank is going to talk about for the next 10 or so? episodes.

[@timeaesnyx]

PatrickAllenNL thank you for the food for thought

[@andrejansen3281]

The powers that be

[@melisitag]

This video is not included in the History of Science playing list in the Crash Course Channel

[@atheistsgod]

COPPERNICKERS!!! XD

[@danielamarioni4890]

YAAAAASSS HISTORIOGRAPHY

[@brunomeral7885]

Can I give you a little trick for when you have to tell something in a language you don't (really) practice? => use google translate. ==> type the word or the sentence needed to be told, select in which language it is, and click on the speaker icon to have the correct (more or less) pronunciation... voilà! ... you're welcome.

[@wanderingrandomer]

Or, learn the IPA

[@MortRotu]

But hearing another chemist struggle to pronounce foreign words like I do is part of the fun of watching Hank! Don't tell him how to work around this! That said, chemists are a smart bunch, he probably already knows but understands that making us giggle with the butchered pronunciation is an audience draw... That and humour helps to get the message across.

[@RoxY-ng1ki]

I use google translate 👍🏻

[@NikolajLepka]

Hank, the H in Brahe is silent. That said, the next episode is probably already recorded

[@ioan_jivan]

That greek guy was awesome

[@travis7104]

Thank Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[@myusername6595]

"This has been frequently framed in this way, but does this obscure other possible framings. did this phenomena (the dark ages/ the cold war/ the scientific revolution/ atrocities of the mongols etc.) happen at all, or are things more complicated????" this is the structure of like every single crash course history/ humanities class, and it's usually pretty useful to add nuance, including in this video. But idk it's just such typical trendy jargon that taken to an extreme prevents you from making any definitive statements whatsoever.

[@myusername6595]

great work in general though crash course. i just feel like this manner of looking at things is very important, but it's become almost a cliche.

[@nalathekitten3594]

Wow❤️

[@alantelemishev9335]

What's up with ancient greeks being ahead of the curve? They had steam engines too for crying out loud.

[@AngeloNasios]

Alan Telemishev Google Greek Paideia. Hellenism was largely unencumbered by any kind of intellectual resistance. Reason was godly. Understanding the world was a "religious" act as I would interpret it

[@scottylilacleona9193]

The fact that said steam engine was hardly expanded upon or utilized effectively, as well as the earliest ideas of a heliocentric cosmos being mostly ignored, and Democritus' atom theory being mostly ignored in his own time, Ancient Greece is the home of missed opportunities and coming across pieces of greatness and discarding it within a week. Of all of these examples, as well as the Cynics having a philosophy that was revolutionary for its age yet stoicism and platonic essentialism became the most widespread world views. Seriously, they find so many of the right answers and either ignore them or discard them completely.

[@AngeloNasios]

Logan Anderson eh, sadly no one is perfect lol better to get close to it than to miss it entirely.

[@scottylilacleona9193]

Angelo Nasios isn't that one of the trademarks of a tragic hero? And it's more hitting the bullseye but everyone saying that you missed completely, in the case of Greek scientific history. And the reasons behind this neat phenomenon have more to do with the condition of ancient Greek society as well as a lack of resources to fully test and prove the hypotheses that were true but ignored.

[@AngeloNasios]

Logan Anderson just imagine what could have had been achieved without Christianity messing it all up

[@timeaesnyx]

Crash course historiography!

[@poloytv3359]

What is the contribution of Meso-american to intellectual revolutions that defined society? Explain it's impact to society..

[@Orcimedes]

I have to say it feels a little odd to show Poland's modern borders, which were *very* different during the Polish Golden Age, during which Copernicus lived.

[@cheesereader]

If you want to know A LOT more about the history of Copernicus's book (De revolutionibus/Of the Revolutions) over the centuries, I strongly recommend *The Book Nobody Read* by Owen Gingerich.

[@sagetucker5558]

How did the scientific revolution affect trade?

[@EmilioSanderson]

Oresme had a "humble" background he went to University in the XIV century

[@froklsnt]

But it's true that the Planets revolve around a point that isn't quite at the center of the sun. They revolve around the center of mass of the sun - planet system, which is at least a few miles off from the exact center of the sun.

[@jeronimotamayolopera4834]

A REVOLUTION DOESN'T HAVE TO BE VIOLENT.

[@numbo655]

Oresme also thought hot goats blood would split diamonds.

[@christopherhorn5274]

The gravitational center of the solar system is not the same as the sun!

[@RoxY-ng1ki]

I’m watching this for school, who else is?

[@shrimpodile]

T-T-T-THOMAS KUHN