The Technologies Revolution Came To A Part Of The World, Why?
Was the reason for the technology revolution the people with extraordinary minds? No, people with brains like Galileo, Newton, Pascal, etc. were born in India, Persia, Africa, China, the Middle East, America.
Was It Because Of Some Inventions?
No, dynamite was first invented in China. The Arabs were far ahead in astronomy. Was it because of peace? No, there were more peaceful regions in the world than this. It did not come because of the kings, nor because of the military, nor because of the role of traditional educational institutions. There was a long chain of cultural change behind it. New intellectual tools were first added to collective thinking. The first step was to know your ignorance. (Detailed post on this from the link below). During this journey, some new words entered the vocabulary, which was not part of the language before or had different meanings. These were the basic blocks of science.
This world is not without principles but based on certain principles. This thing was beginning to be realized. For example, when things fall, they fall at the same speed. Galileo wrote this in detail in his book.
What should they be told?
Buffon first used the word law for them. Steven’s law of hydrostatics, Galileo’s law of fall, Torreselli’s law of flu, Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, Kepler’s laws of motion of the planets, Higgins The law of the pendulum, Sunil’s law of refraction, Hooke’s law of elasticity, Pascal’s law of fluid dynamics, Boyle’s law of gases. They are all part of the scientific revolution. Except for Newton, no one used the word law for him. Laws exist in societies. Where did nature come from? That was common sense. According to the old philosophy, this concept did not exist. Why doesn’t the moon fall? How does the light turn? From the answers to these kinds of questions, we know that whether it is heaven or earth, laws are infallible, they got the name of laws. The idea of judging and using them came from the state justice system.
When something is seen, does anything come out of the eye for it? Or does light reach our eyes? According to Aristotle, sight is something, then we see it. Al-Haytham experimentally disproved the notion of something appearing out of sight. Ibn al-Haytham used the method of experiments for this. For a long time, the method of experiments was individualized, in which only one scientist could experiment and tell something. This collective and communal form was first carried out by Pascal from the barometer. Experiments revealed air pressure. Air density was calculated on the ground and at different heights of the mountains. The method of experimentation became culturally acceptable. When Galileo experimented with putting wood in water, he not only proved Aristotle wrong. He also proved the limit of Archimedes’ law. Mathematicians were also shaken. If experience is telling, then the reason is to arrive, not to fit your idea. Galileo was neither doing philosophy nor mathematics. He was doing science. We understood this method.
Evidence is required for something. (There is almost a translation proof of this but it is not entirely correct). How and under what principle is evidence in favor of an idea acceptable? It’s not as easy as it sounds. If a patient recovers from a drug, is it enough? How often and how can this be repeated? The concept of Half Evidence in Roman law was mathematically incorrect. Religious literature and theologians have worked hard on this, due to “moral certainty.” His ideas came from there.
It is supposed to be translated, but it does not convey the exact meaning. Sometimes it is called a hypothesis to underestimate something. But this idea is not correct. The hypothesis is not just like that. Are done on a basis, and they have to explain something. The rules were insufficient. They would tell you about an action, but not about why it happens. They used to explain them.