Microsoft Word - Condĕ Layout
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
41
Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 2019 (7): 41-57
ISSN 2526-2270
www.historiographyofscience.org
Belo Horizonte – MG / Brazil
© The Author 2019 – This is an open access article
Article
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science1
Mauro L. Condé2
Abstract:
This paper aims to demonstrate that a qualitative change in the use of language to codify
social practices and technological developments was an essential point in the construction
of the so-called scientific revolution. In other words, alongside the social and technological
settings developing in the European context from the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries, the
pragmatic-linguistic codifications that emerged in this process were essential for the
construction of modern science. The role of language in this process, which is understood
from this pragmatic viewpoint, is called here the linguistic thesis on the scientific revolution.
Keyword: Linguistic thesis; Language and science; Scientific revolution; Modern science,
Wittgenstein
Received: 03 June 2019. Reviewed: 03 October 2019. Accepted: 20 November 2019.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24117/2526-2270.2019.i7.04
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
_____________________________________________________________________________
What a Copernicus or a Darwin really achieved was not the
discovery of a true theory but of a fertile new point of view.3
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Introduction
Around the seventeenth century, the European way of life changed profoundly and with
exponential implications that subsequently spread throughout the world. There were social,
economic, political, and technological transformations so radical in this context that enabled
the rise of modern science. In turn, science contributed enormously to the profound change
1 This article is based on an opening lecture held at the “1st School for the History of Science” at the
University of São Paulo (USP), on July 23, 2018. I am very grateful to the organizing committee for the
invitation, particularly to Prof. Dr. Ivã Gurgel (USP) and Prof. Dr. Gildo Magalhães (USP).
2 Mauro L. Condé [Orcid: 0000-0003-4156-2926] is a Professor in the Department of History at the
Federal University of Minas Gerais (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais). Address: Av. Antonio
Carlos, 6627 – Belo Horizonte – MG. 31.270-901, Brazil. E-mail: mauroconde@ufmg.br
3 “Das eigentliche Verdienst eines Kopernicus oder Darwin war nicht die Entdeckung einer wahren
Theorie, sondern eines fruchtbaren neuen Aspekts” (Wittgenstein, 1980 [1977], 18).
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
42
in human knowledge, leading Alexandre Koyré to characterize this singular event as a
“scientific revolution”.4 Therefore, whether or not we give credence to the Franco-Russian
historian of science’s statement about modern science as a radical break from the past, or
accept the idea of a “continuous” and “progressive” transformation (Duhem, Crombie), or
even an “evolution” (Fleck) of knowledge as advocated by other authors, it is undeniable
that the advent of modern science affects us to this day. In other words, it is a truism that
the scientific revolution has indelibly changed human life.
I assert, however, that the use of the expression “scientific revolution” does not
necessarily advocate Koyré’s thesis about this radical rupture, but is merely a useful “label”
or rubric that has become usual and, in different ways, aggregated to this series of social,
technological, and epistemological transformations that culminated in the construction of
modern science. Whether this change was an abrupt “revolution”, or a continually prepared
“evolution”, is a matter of fact that has represented some “disruption” or “deflection” of
the historical process and, as a consequence, created modern science.
What would have caused this great transformation of knowledge in that context? In
other words, what would have caused modern science? Or the scientific revolution as
characterized by Koyré and his followers? Admittedly, there were multiple factors, and in this
sense, possibly, modern science was the result of this whole set of changes in the values and
practices of the medieval world. Would it be possible, however, to point out a determining
factor or, at least, more prominently in conducting this process? Did science develop
intrinsically, or did factors external to it have a determining influence? These were issues
addressed by the debate internalism versus externalism between the 1940s and 1960s.5
For authors labeled as externalists, such as Edgar Zilsel, social and technological factors
– in the new economic context brought on by capitalism – allowed for the construction of
modern science by uniting the practical knowledge of higher craftsmen (or artist-engineers)
with the theoretical knowledge of philosophers and humanists (Zilsel, 2000 [1994], 6).6 On
the other hand, for Koyré, labeled as the highest representative of internalism, such social
and technological factors would be secondary and science would be the first and foremost
result of a “metaphysical attitude” (Koyré 1966 [1939], 13). Since ancient Greece, science
would be essentially theoria (Koyré 1973 [1966], 399). Moreover, Koyré argued that if
technical elements were fundamental to the scientific revolution, it would have occurred
with the Roman engineers a thousand years earlier (Koyré 1973 [1966], 75). In affirming the
hegemony of the theory over technological and social issues, the Franco-Russian historian
concludes that the invention of the clock, for example, was due much more to the ideas of
scientists (Galileo, Newton, and Huygens) than to the excellent work of artisans who
manufactured this timepiece (Koyré 1971 [1961], 354, 357). Finally, for him, theory prevails
over technique and social issues, which would have secondary contributions.
A decisive point made here is that, to some extent, this debate between internalism
and externalism, which sought to understand the foundation of modern science, did not
reach a consensus – no matter how great the effort7 – because there is a lack of analysis of
the issues concerning language use in that proper context. Language is an essential element
that provides more satisfactory answers as to understanding “how” modern science arose.
Although the question of language has already appeared in some interpretations on modern
4 According to Shapin, “the phrase ‘the scientific revolution’ was not in common use before Alexandre
Koyré gave it wider currency in 1939” (Shapin 1996, 2).
5 Shapin suggests the dates of this debate between the end of World War II and the end of the Cold
War (Shapin 1992, 333).
6 Paolo Rossi developed some essential aspects of the Zilsel thesis in I filosofi e le macchine 1400-1700
(Rossi 2009 [1962]).
7 In a sense, Kuhn’s classic book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is a somewhat successful
attempt to resolve this debate (Kuhn 1970 [1962]).
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
43
science before the mid-twentieth century, indeed the historiography of science began to
assimilate the issue of language with the developments of the so-called “linguistic turn”. For
that purpose, it was especially important the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein, as well as
more categorical works that affirmed the relevance of social aspects in the construction of
scientific knowledge.8 The later Wittgenstein, especially in his Philosophical Investigations
(2008 [1953]), is a central figure in the pragmatic approach of language. As regards to the
assimilation of language in the historiography of science, the Austrian philosopher was also
a thinker with significant influence on Kuhn (1970 [1962], 2000), and Shapin and Schaffer
(1985). Similarly, I will consider Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language – with its notions of
“language games” (Sprachspiele), “form of life” (Lebensform), and “grammar” (Grammatik)
(Condé, 1998, 2004, 2018) – to propose a linguistic thesis for the scientific revolution.
In other words, although authors such as Kuhn, Shapin and Schaffer have already
assimilated Wittgenstein’s philosophy to understand the history of science, their results do
not seem to have reached all possible implications, especially regarding to the advent of the
modern scientific revolution. Indeed, what I am trying to demonstrate is that, from the
elements put forward by Wittgenstein’s work, it is possible to deepen one’s understanding
of what the scientific revolution was and, consequently, the production of scientific
knowledge in and of itself.
According to the linguistic thesis, starting from the interactions between social and
new technologies in the context of emerging capitalism, as presented by Zilsel, we can go
further in understanding that the pragmatics of language played a very relevant role in the
conduct and organization of this production process of our technical and theoretical
knowledge of society and nature, as well as of the use we have made with this knowledge.
In a sense, one can argue that modern science is the result of a new pragmatic linguistic order
or a new codification of the process of knowledge production based on this social and
technological context, uniting practical and theoretical knowledge, as postulated by Zilsel.
Thus, the linguistic thesis can be an excellent instrument for assessing “how” engendered
the elements are that made the scientific revolution possible.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge that understanding the active role of language
codification in this process of scientific knowledge production is very important not only for
its historical aspects, but also because the process of making science is still linguistically
similar to what engendered the rise of modern science. Considering how the scientific
revolution produced knowledge allows us to understand how science has developed
historically and, as a consequence, the linguistic thesis can also be an excellent instrument to
understand the science of today.
In aiming to understand the problem of language in the production of scientific
knowledge, I will first analyze how some significant authors of the historiography of science
understood the issue of language. Then I will work on the idea of the linguistic thesis on the
scientific revolution. By addressing the issue of language discussed by these authors, the
purpose is not to approach their works as a whole – an impossible task for an article – but to
delineate how the problem of language appears in the historiography of science. And, finally,
I will develop the linguistic approach to understanding the scientific revolution.
The Problem of Language in the Historiography of Science
Theses about the construction of modern science became recurrent in the twentieth century.
Several historians, sociologists, and philosophers have elaborated different theses as to what
could have produced the scientific revolution in that context. However, even when they
8 Although Kuhn’s work gave more visibility to the social perspective in understanding scientific
knowledge, this point was already defended by authors such as Fleck, Zilsel, Hessen, Grossman, etc.
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
44
made references to the issue of language, these authors did not place it as a central point in
the process. If one analyzes the second half of the twentieth century, after the consolidation
of the linguistic turn, one can see a development of language’s role in the historiography of
science. Language became progressively present in the analysis of scientific knowledge,
although this movement does not appear to have reached all of its complexity yet. Thus,
throughout the twentieth century, authors such as Burtt (1925), Fleck (1935), Kuhn (1962,
2000), and Shapin and Schaffer (1985) analyzed the issue of language. And clearly, one can
see that while Burtt and Fleck cared about language, which they referenced in their writing
before the linguistic turn, both did not feel the need for a more systematic treatment of it.
They did not highlight language as a central tool for elucidating the production of scientific
knowledge.
Subsequently, Kuhn, and Shapin and Schaffer – already inserted in a context in which
the linguistic turn was already present – made great strides towards clarifying the issue of
language as an essential element in the construction of science. Finally, all these authors,
throughout the twentieth century, gave us excellent reasonings to think about the problem
of language in the development of scientific knowledge, although, they have not yet
achieved all the possible success in their analysis, especially concerning the advent of the
scientific revolution. In what follows, I will address aspects of these abovementioned
authors’ work regarding language so as to map how the issue of language has evolved in the
historiography of science. From what they have already presented, we can go further to
elucidate the role of language in the construction of scientific knowledge, especially
concerning the episode of the scientific revolution.
Burtt and the Language at the Service of Metaphysics
Already in the first half of the twentieth century, one can see explicit references to language
in a classic text such as Edwin Burtt’s, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical
Science, edited in 1925. Although Burtt’s central thesis states that metaphysics (or the change
from medieval to modern metaphysics) was the critical point in the construction of modern
science, it is not very clear as to what he exactly means by metaphysics. Unlike Koyré, for
whom metaphysics is linked to Cartesian mathesis universalis or the Platonic ideas that
support the foundations of mathematics as the epicenter of the scientific revolution (Condé
2017), in Burtt, perhaps, one can understand metaphysics – almost in a cultural sense –
virtually as a diffuse set of beliefs and values of a given historical period. Thus, for Burtt,
modern science would be the result of this change of metaphysics or transformation of the
beliefs of medieval society to those of modern society (Burtt 1925, 2). According to Burtt,
medieval cosmological ideas would have been replaced with an ethical-social conception in
which concepts such as “progress”, “control”, and the like (Burtt 1925, 3) find their meaning
when one follows the “metaphysical notions” of the modern thought. And this is how Burtt
concludes, similar to Koyré’s position,9 that what happened at the beginning of modern
science was a change of metaphysical conception of the natural world that transformed the
thinking of medieval man into that of modern man (Burtt 1925, 5).
In other words, if we understand Burtt’s notion of metaphysics as a set of beliefs, the
changes in beliefs and the attitude toward them led to the need to develop a new
understanding of the nature’s working. And something central to Burtt’s conclusion is that it
9 Besides having a broader notion of metaphysics than Koyré, for Burtt, metaphysics is a “scaffold”
that provided the foundation of science and would have fulfilled its role after science arose. In
contrast, Koyré criticizes Burtt and maintains that metaphysics is an element that remains present in
science even after its consolidation (Koyré 1971 [1961], 255). Like Koyré, Burtt also referred to this
metaphysical change as a “revolution” (Burtt 1925, 16).
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
45
becomes necessary to use a new “language” and ideas to express this new metaphysics.
“Modern philosophers have been endeavouring to follow the ontological quest in terms of a
relatively new background of language and a new undercurrent of ideas” (Burtt 1925, 13). For
him, the terminology of the medieval world no longer explained the modern world.
Therefore, with its new metaphysics, modern period (Newton) has established precise
mathematical meanings for concepts such as “force”, “mass”, “inertia”, as well as giving
new meanings to old concepts such as “space”, “time”, “movement” (Burtt 1925, 20).
According to the author of The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science, this new
language will define modern man’s new relations with the objects of his knowledge, which is
very innovative for the year Burtt is writing. However, shortly after, the role of language is
reduced to metaphysics when he points out that the answers to modern scientific questions
about space, time, and matter, and the new relationships to objects are what conclusively
“constitute modern metaphysics” (Burtt 1925, 21).
We realize, therefore, that even though Burtt has a place for language, he eventually
understands it in the context of his metaphysical project. Language is a simple adjunct to
metaphysics. Indeed, the questions about language as it will be consolidated in the linguistic
turn were still very incipient in the context of the 1920s in which Burtt wrote.
Fleck and the Ordinary Language versus Logical Language
In Fleck’s now-classic book, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, edited in 1935, one
can see several references to language. Generally speaking, Fleck attaches great importance
to ordinary language in the production of scientific knowledge, opposing the logical
language supported by the Vienna circle, particularly by Carnap. As a central point, for Fleck,
a logical and empirical language cannot be conceived without incorporating the social
aspects (Fleck 1979 [1935], 50, 177). Long before the linguistic turn established the
relationship between language and the pragmatic aspects of the social, Fleck already
understood that the relationship between these social aspects and language was paramount
to the understanding of science. Thus, unlike Burtt, who exactly a decade earlier connected
language to metaphysics, Fleck related social elements and language to reach an adequate
understanding of the production of scientific knowledge. According to the Polish thinker,
language and social practices unite the “thought collective” (Denkkollektive) that produces
knowledge or the “thought style” (Denkstil) in a specific period.
Any kind of learning is connected with some tradition and society, and words and
customs already suffice to form a collective bond. Cognition is the most socially-
conditioned activity of man, and knowledge is the paramount social creation. The very
structure of language presents a compelling philosophy characteristic of that
community, and even a single word can represent a complex theory. (Fleck, 1979
[1935], 42)
In addition to attributing to the language this role of a unifying the “thought
collective”, Fleck asserts that language in itself has no meaning, but only in the context of
knowledge production (thought collective) the meaning emerges. “Word as such do not
have fixed meanings. They acquire their most proper sense only in some context or field of
science” (Fleck, 1979 [1935], 53). Moreover, language not only has an importance in the
dynamics that will lead to the construction of concepts and theories (even if they are not
eternal) that will unify the thought style in our thought collective, but, after the acceptation
of a scientific theory, language continues to play a significant role in the process of
consolidating science. Language helps in forming the “system of opinion” or the “harmony
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
46
of illusion” (Fleck, 1979 [1935], 27) to unify the scientific community. Fleck asserts that
“words which formerly were simple terms become slogans; sentences which once were
simple statements become calls to battle” (Fleck, 1979 [1935], 43). Therefore, language is
fundamental in the thought style’s creation by formulating its specific vocabulary –
terminologies – which, from there, will help in the maintenance of science, stabilizing the
thought style of a thought collective.
A closer investigation of thought style and of the general social characteristics of
thought collectives in their mutual relations can be made by concentrating upon stable
thought collectives. Such stable (or comparatively stable) thought communities, like
other organized communes, cultivate a certain exclusiveness both formally and in
content. A thought commune becomes isolated formally, but also absolutely bonded
together, through statutory and customary arrangements, sometimes a separate
language, or at least special terminology. (Fleck, 1979 [1935], 103)
More than unite the thought collective internally (intracollective), language is one of
the crucial elements for connecting different thought styles (intercollective) and even
different historical periods, thus establishing a tradition in the production of knowledge.
Concepts or notions that Fleck calls “proto-ideas” or “pre-ideas” in language (Fleck, 1979
[1935], 23, 26) pass through different thought styles over time, such as the ideas of syphilis
or atoms. For Fleck, language is thus a connecting link running through different thought
styles. “Whether we like it or not, we can never sever our links with the past, complete with
all its errors. It survives in accepted concepts, in the presentation of problems, in the syllabus
of formal education, in everyday life, as well as in language and institutions” (Fleck, 1979
[1935], 20). With this ability to transit between different collectives, language is not only the
element that unites a collective or connects it to other thought collectives (or other thought
styles), but it has the plasticity to reshape or create new meanings when these concepts
migrate or circulate among different thought collectives (interkollektiven Denkverkehr).
Words as such constitute a special medium of intercollective communication. Since all
words bear a more or less distinctive coloring conforming to a given thought style, a
character which changes during the passage from one collective to the next, they
always undergo a certain change in their meaning as they circulate intercollectively.
One could compare the meaning of the words “force”, “energy”, or “experiment” for
a physicist, a philologist, or a sportsman. (Fleck, 1979 [1935], 109)
Finally, for Fleck, language plays a crucial role in the final constitution of what is
considered a scientific fact or what is understood by scientific objectivity.
This tendency to reify and objectivize the conceptual creations of scientific thought
arises, as has already been described, during the migration of ideas throughout the
collective and is inseparably bound up with it. Graduated in several steps, it begins with
statements by different scientists as well as the historical development of a problem,
so that it becomes depersonalized. Special expressions or “technical terms” are
introduced. To these are added special symbols and possibly a whole sign language
such as is used in chemistry, mathematics, or symbolic logic. Such a lifeless language
guarantees fixed meanings for concepts, rendering them static and absolute. (Fleck,
1979 [1935], 144)
However, although Fleck had excellent and innovative ideas about language in the
construction of scientific knowledge, the author of Genesis and Development of a Scientific
Fact did not think that he should do a better systematization of language or create a type of
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
47
language theory that could highlight the real role of language in science production. He
believed that the simple understanding of natural language (as opposed to logical language)
in this process of science production would solve the problem of knowledge.
In a way, the separation between “context of discovery” versus “context of
justification” presented by the neopositivist philosopher Hans Reichenbach (1938), shortly
after Fleck’s work appeared, would include sociological and linguistic remarks about science
in the field of the “context of discovery”. All the same, this was perhaps one of the factors
(among many) to move Fleck’s work away from the historiography of science for many
years.10 Almost three decades later, Kuhn will revive Fleck’s book, but unfortunately, the
American philosopher will not give much value to the issue of language as proposed by the
Polish thinker, assimilating only the social aspect present in the production of scientific
knowledge (Kuhn, 1970 [1962] vii).
Kuhn and the Lexicon of Science
Thomas Kuhn incorporated aspects of the issue of language into his conception of the history
of science already in his classic book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, edited in 1962.
There, albeit indirectly, some elements appear in this sense – in particular, in his references
to Wittgenstein (Kuhn 1970 [1962], 44-45) in the chapter “The Priority of Paradigms” – but it
will undoubtedly be with his later concept of lexicon that he will assume the full importance
of language for understanding the process of producing scientific knowledge. Thus, in his
following texts, language occupies his interest progressively until his death in 1996. In 1995,
Kuhn stated: “much of my thoughts these days goes to language” (Kuhn 2000, 259).11
In a pragmatic viewpoint, still strongly inspired by Wittgenstein,12 for Kuhn, the lexicon
is precisely the way information about the language and the world is distributed in our
interactions and representations of the world. Unlike what he previously affirmed in his
famous book; a scientific revolution would now be a “linguistic revolution” in which
knowledge about nature comes with the language. As Kuhn exemplifies in Planck’s case,
Revolutions were accompanied by changes in the way in which terms like “motion” or
“cell” attached to nature. In this example there was actually a change in the words
themselves, one that highlights those features of the physical situation that the
revolution had made prominent. When Planck around 1909 was at last persuaded that
discontinuity had come to stay, he switched to a vocabulary that has been standard
since. Previously he had ordinarily referred to the cell size ε as the energy “element”.
Now, in 1909, he began regularly to speak instead of the energy “quantum”. (Kuhn
2000, 28)
10 Ironically, it was in this Reichenbach’s book that Kuhn found the reference to Fleck’s book (Kuhn
1979, vii).
11 The importance of language in Kuhn occurs progressively in the following texts: “What are Scientific
Revolutions?”, “Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability”, “Possible Worlds in History of
Science”, “The Road since Structure”, “The Trouble with the Historical Philosophy of Science” and
“Afterwords” from the book World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science, organized by Paul
Horwich, in 1993. These texts appeared separately between 1982 and 1993 and are now part of the
book The Road since Structure. From here, all references follow this edition (Kuhn, 2000).
12 Kuhn recognizes Wittgenstein “recurrent role” in his “philosophical development” (Kuhn 2000, 72),
and makes many direct references to Wittgenstein’s concepts, such as language games, form of life,
and uses (Kuhn 2000, 62, 63, 100, 244, 245).
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
48
In a sense, one can say that Kuhn has moved towards a linguistic turn with which he
has tried to solve old problems presented in his theory of science in The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions. According to this new linguistic viewpoint, unlike the idea of radical rupture
between scientific concepts or worldviews associated with the notion of incommensurability
of the paradigms shown in his book, the idea of scientific revolution should now be seen not
as a radical rupture but as a change of language. The incommensurability would focus much
more on difficulties between the language of different groups or between present and past
scientific theories – now called lexicon by him stead of paradigms – than an impossible
overlap between these groups, such as the idea of a gestalt switch made us believe
(synthesized in the duck-rabbit gestalt figure), or even his conception of paradigm shift or
scientific revolution.
Among the problems brought about by the concept of paradigm, perhaps one of the
most important has been the need to answer the following question: how is one paradigm
incommensurable with another, but still able to understand the other? It will be with the
lexicon theory that Kuhn will try to solve this problem. The incommensurability exists
because these different groups build their vocabularies that give access to different possible
worlds. “To possess a lexicon, a structured vocabulary, is to have access to the varied set of
worlds which that lexicon can be used to describe” (Kuhn 2000, 61).
Thus, the incommensurability between lexicons would no longer mean any overlap
between them. What exists are varying degrees of linguistic differences. However, according
to Kuhn, understanding different lexicons requires not only a superficial translation of
concepts from one area to another but an extension of a complete network of concepts from
one area to another. This is not a process of “translation” (Kuhn 2000, 59), but of
“bilingualism” (Kuhn 2000, 93, 238). In translation, to bring understanding from one area of
knowledge to another, we organize the conceptual field from one area to another without
necessarily both areas having a mutual understanding of all the nuances of the conceptual
network of each lexicon. In bilingualism, the same individual dominates both lexicons. And,
as the holder of this expertise, he or she understands the nuances of each lexicon. Finally, in
bilingualism – unlike translation – it is possible to reconstruct, from our lexicon, the foreign
lexicon.
Kuhn, however, turns away from an entirely pragmatic perspective by approaching, at
least, a metaphysical vocabulary. To make the connection between different lexicons
possible, Kuhn concludes that his theory presupposes the Kantian notions of categories and
Ding an sich. “The position I am developing is a sort of Post-Darwinian Kantianism. Like the
Kantian categories, the lexicon supplies preconditions of possible experience” (Kuhn 2000,
104).
The Kuhnian lexicon would, therefore, give the “conditions of possibility” to achieve
knowledge of natural phenomena. This would make knowledge of the world to some extent
dependent on human perception, but, as with Kant, not completely (because they would rest
on the ineffable). To be specific, Kuhn further emphasizes his Kantian position by postulating
that what guarantees the possibility of change among lexicons is some kind of Ding an sich.
The North American philosopher states: “Underlying all these processes of differentiation
and change, there must, of course, be something permanent, fixed and stable. But, like
Kant’s Ding an sich, it is ineffable, undescribable, undiscussible” (Kuhn 2000, 104).
Kuhn, however, attempts to mitigate the metaphysical nature of the Kantian concepts
of categories and Ding an sich by giving them historical and social aspects, “but lexical
categories, unlike their Kantian forebears, can and do change, both with time and with the
passage from one community to another” (Kuhn 2000, 104). Nevertheless, this Kantian
position ultimately limits Kuhn’s epistemology, since he does not ground them directly in the
nature, social and technological contexts of knowledge production, but instead link them to
the Kantian metaphysics of the ineffable. In other words, Kuhn advances to understand
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
49
language as an essential aspect in the production of scientific knowledge but fails to give his
theory of lexicon a sufficiently pragmatic stance and ultimately resorts to a metaphysics of
the ineffable, indescribable, and indisputable to justify it.
Shapin, Schaffer and the Experimental Form of Life
After Kuhn’s classic book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, one of the most impactful
books on the historiography of science was Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and
the Experimental Life by Shapin and Schaffer, edited in 1985. Although the authors define the
book as “an exercise in the sociology of scientific knowledge” (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 15)
linked to the “Strong Program” in different passages, they based the book’s proposal directly
on Wittgensteinian notions of “form of life” (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 18, 20, 22) and
“language games” (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 49, 51, 67), thus taking an approach based on
the pragmatism. By addressing this controversy between Hobbes and Boyle concerning the
existence of the vacuum – in the epicenter of modern science in the seventeenth century –
according to the authors, his intention was to understand the internal logic of the
experimental “form of life”.
According to Shapin and Schaffer, in his New Experiments, Boyle did not create an
epistemology but established rules of procedure to teach the experimental philosopher how
to deal with “practical matters of induction, hypothesizing, causal theorizing, and relating of
matters of fact to their explanations” (Shapin and Schaffer, 1985, 49). In this way, Boyle
established an “experimental narrative” (Shapin and Schaffer, 1985, 63), that is to say, more
than conducting his experiments, he created an experimental “language game” and an
experimental “form of life” (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 49, 51) which involves not only the
production device of experiments in itself (the air pump mechanism), but all the social and
linguistic (collective) developments necessary for the consolidation of science. Indeed, to
produce experimental knowledge, or to generate matter of facts, it is required to establish a
set of conventions that are linguistic and social. Only one experimental philosopher who
accomplishes the experiment cannot validate a scientific fact. Only the collective of
members can provide recognition of a scientific fact. As a result, this validation is achieved
through the linguistic and social rules of the collective. In other words, the fact is not only
about performance, but “upon the assurance of the relevant community that they had been
so performed” (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 55).
The uses of language obeying a convention, among other things, indicate whether an
experimental philosopher takes part in a community (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 70).
Therefore, linguistic and social practices define the members of the community. So more
than “speak”, the members “act” in this collective according to its rules. Following a
Wittgensteinian pragmatics viewpoint, the authors state: “the ultimate justification of
convention does not take the form of verbalized rules. Instead, the ‘justification’ of
convention is the form of life: the total pattern of activities which includes discursive
practices” (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 52).
To outline these collective social and linguistic practices of the new experimental form
of life created by Boyle, the authors of Leviathan and the Air-Pump established three different
concepts of technologies that, according to them, would be present in the process of
scientific knowledge production. The three technologies are: “material technology”, “social
technology” and “literary technology”. Starting from the analysis of the controversy
between Boyle and Hobbes about the air pump, the big science of the XVII century (Shapin
and Schaffer 1985, 38), the authors define their three conceptions of technologies as follows:
A material technology embedded in the construction and operation of the air-pump; a
literary technology by means of which the phenomena produced by the pump were
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
50
made known to those who were not direct witnesses; and a social technology that
incorporated the conventions experimental philosophers should use in dealing with
each other and considering knowledge-claims. (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 25)
To this extent, more than material technology or material technical device (the air
pump), literary technology, and social technology are, according to Shapin and Schaffer,
essential “knowledge-producing tools” (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 25). In other words, to
produce science is equally important, along with the apparatus of material technology, the
use of other technologies that establish the conventions upheld by the scientific community
(social technology) and to define the mechanisms of transmission of scientific knowledge
(literary technology). Finally based on these technologies, they synthesize what was
accomplished in the book: “We identify the technical, literary, and social practices whereby
experimental matters of fact were to be generated, validated, and formed into bases for
consensus. (…) we discuss the social and linguistic practices Boyle recommended to
experimentalists” (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 18). One can realize that similarly to Fleck and
Kuhn, they affirm the interconnection between linguistic and social practices for the
definition of scientific knowledge.
Beyond producing the air pump with its material technology, the role of literary
technology was to help create an experimental community. For the authors of Leviathan and
the Air-Pump, “Boyle’s literary technology dramatized the social relations proper to a
community of experimental philosophers. Only by establishing right rules of discourse could
matters of fact be generated and defended” (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 69). The “rules of
discourse” set out the language and practice to be followed by members belonging to the
community or experimental form of life. In this sense, for the authors, Hobbes and Boyle, in
following different rules of discourse, belonged to two different forms of life. Thus, they
followed different literary technologies in considering the air pump experiment. As the
authors point out by analyzing Hobbes and Boyle concerning the air pump,
The difference between Hobbes and Boyle on cohesion was not, therefore, a
difference in mechanism or a difference in their attitudes towards the horror vacui:
both embraced the former and abominated the latter. It was a difference in
conceptions of proper speech about such phenomena, and, therefore, a difference in
exemplifying how the natural philosopher was to go on. (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 91)
As in Fleck and Kuhn, one can see that, for Shapin and Schaffer, knowledge takes place
in a community or a collective (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 56) being linguistic and social.
However, rather than stressing the linguistic and social character of knowledge, at the
conclusion of the book, Shapin and Schaffer go in the other direction by stating that
knowledge is eminently political. Regardless of whether Boyle was considered by several
historians of science as the father of the experimental life, for Shapin and Schaffer, this would
not be the point in the history of science they sought to make. For them, rather than being
exclusively scientific, “the solution of the problem of knowledge is political” (Shapin and
Schaffer, 1985, 342).
Boyle’s new scientific proposal would share, according to the authors, with the new
political order instituted by the “restoration” of monarchical power, the same form of life
that supported the ideal of an open and liberal society. This new political organization should
also be the space for building the then nascent science. The laboratory, like the space for the
construction of useful knowledge, belonged to the same order brought about by political
restoration. The authors end the book by concluding: “we put ourselves in a position to
realize that it is ourselves and not reality that is responsible for what we know. Knowledge,
as much as the state, is the product of human action” (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 344).
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
51
However, by defending this political position – beyond the linguistic and social aspects
in their interaction with the material technology for the production of facts – the authors
ended up turning to epistemological relativism in which the criterion of fact production
becomes ultimately political. The political instance would define whether knowledge is
validated or not. “The form of life in which we make our scientific knowledge will stand or
fall with the way we order our affair in the state” (Shapin and Schaffer 1985, 344). Prominent
authors like Thomas Kuhn have criticized this relativist shift that, by overemphasizing the
political aspect, would be downplaying nature’s role in the process of producing scientific
knowledge.13
Although it is not my aim to criticize this fantastic book and only draw attention to the
issue of the language it presents, I would like to reiterate a point. Indeed, the political aspect
can be an instance that inhibits or stimulates the production of scientific knowledge, thus
political elements are a “necessary condition”, but not a “sufficient condition” for the
production of knowledge. These sufficient conditions, as the authors also demonstrated, are
in the social and linguistic practices that create the material technology for understanding
the interactions between mankind and nature. Finally, these experimental language games
would be the epistemological parameters for the definition of knowledge, and not political
language games, even though the two have, to use a Wittgensteinian expression, “family
resemblances” (Wittgenstein 2008 [1953] §§ 67, 77, 108).
The Grammar of the Scientific Revolution
The linguistic thesis on the scientific revolution seeks to affirm that language, understood in
its pragmatic conception – especially from the perspective of the later Wittgenstein – was a
crucial element that enabled the production of scientific knowledge in the scientific
revolution. In other words, language began to play a coordinating role in the processes of
production of the new technological know-how and social orders presented by emerging
capitalism. This new role of language has enhanced the dialogue between techniques and
theory – also modifying the theory itself. The theory thus starts to ground the scientific
practices – reciprocally anchored in these techniques and social orders – finally establishing
the modern scientific revolution.
As I tried to demonstrate from the authors analyzed, language has been progressively
incorporated by the historiography of science since it became an academic discipline. We can
learn from Burtt – regardless of his metaphysical project – that language plays a vital role in
the way we organize our objects, whether technical or scientific, even though Burtt privileges
scientific objects with a metaphysical halo. We have seen with Fleck that it is practically
impossible to dissociate language from the social in the production of scientific knowledge.
We only do science, among other material assumptions, from a social context using language
to create and express concepts and theories, and one consolidates scientific practices by the
specific terminologies that language provides us. Along the same lines, according to Kuhn,
we only know the world because we establish the use of language for it. That is to say, we
create a lexicon from where we interpret it. In the scientific lexicon, information about
language and the world is distributed in our interactions and representations of the world.
For Kuhn, we only access the world from our lexicon. In the same vein, Shapin and Schaffer
reinforce the idea that knowledge is social and to be accepted as a product of the collective,
it is necessary to use social and literary technologies, such as certain language games (which
are social and linguistic), beyond of scientific artifacts themselves, or what they call material
13 Kuhn’s criticism appears in “The Trouble with the Historical Philosophy of Science” (Kuhn 2000
[1992], 105-120).
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
52
technology. Finally, I remarked that Wittgenstein’s influence was a huge presence in Kuhn’s
analysis as well as in Shapin and Schaffer’s book.
In understanding the role of language as presented, in what follows, based on the later
Wittgenstein, I will seek to address more specifically the issue of language in the advent of
the scientific revolution. The point is not to show historically how a particular scientist – or
scientific theory – in the early days of science established scientific knowledge or created a
scientific community, but to understand the epistemological – and not precisely historical –
process of the scientific knowledge production in that context. Therefore, seeking a possible
“origin” of modern science is not about establishing the historical “ground zero” of this
event, but about attempting to understand it epistemologically as a mechanism of
production of knowledge as such in that context of the emerging capitalist society that led
to the scientific revolution. In analogy to Charles Darwin’s use of the word “origins”, in his
The Origins of Species, where the celebrated British scientist does not seek to find the
“ground zero” of evolution but to understand the mechanism of “speciation” that generates
or originates a new species. Thus, I am trying epistemologically to recognize the device that
creates a new process of knowledge production that took place between the world of
medieval man and that of modern man.
As in Shapin and Schaffer, and partly in Kuhn, the assumption here is that the
construction of modern science constituted a new form of life (a lexicon for Kuhn or thought
style according to Fleck), specifically, an experimental form of life, as the authors of Leviathan
and the Air-Pump established, or one could say a scientific form of life. In other words, my
goal is to understand, from an epistemological viewpoint, the assumptions of the advent of
modern science or how a pre-scientific society starts – from the late Middle Ages – to create
the mechanisms to constitute itself as a scientific society. In the authors analyzed above, this
question about the epistemological device in the advent of modern science appears partially,
since they sought to analyze how science was historically done in its early days and not
necessarily how, between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, it was structured the
mechanism of knowledge production that drove to modern science. In other words, in
interpreting the history of science, they highlighted how science worked considering social
and linguistic aspects, but they are not necessarily looking for the mechanism that
constructed science, in terms similar to those discussed by Zilsel and Koyré, when these
authors try to explain what produced the scientific revolution. Therefore, the aim here is to
use the linguistic approach – already partially developed by the authors treated above – to
answer the question directly about the scientific revolution or the advent of modern science
as posed by the internalism versus externalism debate.
According to the Zilsel thesis (Zilsel 2000 [1994], 6), as mentioned earlier, the social
and economic conditions brought by capitalism, by presenting new values such as
individualism, competition, profit, etc., created an environment that allowed the
approximation of practical knowledge of higher craftsmen or artist-engineers to theoretical
knowledge of academics philosophers (in addition to humanists). This union of the artisans’
practical knowledge to the academics’ methodology made possible, according to Zilsel, the
construction of modern science. From the Wittgenstein’s linguistic viewpoint, we could
further argue that this confluence between technical and theoretical knowledge in this
society enabled not only social and technological developments (by turning technique into
technology), but it also established epistemological developments by generating theories
about nature, improved experimental technical apparatus and finally created the science.
Unfortunately, however, Zilsel did not stress the importance of language in this process. As
a consequence, in the historiography of science, metaphysical theses such as those of Koyré
and Burtt became prioritized to explain the scientific revolution.
To understand how language is linked with the Zilsel thesis, we need to look at some
developments of this thesis. For this philosopher and historian of science, the new
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
53
production system of capitalism, rather than prioritizing the production of war artifacts, was
widely used in the production of varied artifacts and goods consumption, which was unlike
other socio-economic contexts, such as in the Roman Empire, for example (Zilsel 2000 [1942],
8-9). This reorientation of the technical output in this new scenario also implied more and
more social and economic transformations that gradually changed medieval society. There
was significant growth in new techniques that brought about major social implications. If we
seek to see the linguistic thesis connect to the Zilsel thesis, one can see that this
complexification of techniques in this new social order also presented new pragmatic and
linguistic rules that significantly modified the very social structures. In other words, new
language games have emerged because these new techniques and their different uses have
come to imply the construction not only of new technical devices with their new
terminologies but their applications in the newly emerging social settings. In Wittgensteinian
terms, it was the establishment of new and varied language games in this emergent form of
life, or, as one can say, the constitution of a “grammar of knowledge”.
In that environment there were favorable conditions – which possibly rested on
imponderable historical constraints – that brought about a new technical knowledge. This
development was in opposition to the traditional medieval culture that was hitherto
predominant. Although this medieval knowledge was based on traditional practices and
customs, it did not have systematic and written methodologies in its formulation and
transmission. And, of course, there was not a stimulus for this purpose. Unlike medieval
society, in early capitalism, the new techniques were formulated and codified in treatises and
manuals with specific terminologies and uses, and could thus be transmitted and reproduced
in different places, thereby solving local and cross-border problems. Putting it in another
way, these new “technical language games”, unlike traditional knowledge, constituted a
new grammar of knowledge, specifically, a new set of social, linguistic, and pragmatic rules
(grammar) that, more than the technical devices itself, changed the social conditions of its
surroundings.
For the author of Philosophical Investigations, grammar is this set of rules for the use of
words in specific contexts of actions and social interactions, thus being more than mere
linguistic rules, rules of behavior.14 Therefore, for Wittgenstein, the rules that make up our
grammar come from our “patterns” of behavior, our habits, customs, and institutions
(Wittgenstein 2008 [1953], §§ 142, 199, 202, 226, 227). When we understand the rule as the
product of a language game, we can conclude by the operative character of the rule.
Following a rule is an operation – this is the pragmatic character of the rule. According to
Wittgenstein, grammar is this set of rules, uses, and language games based on a form of life.
It is in this sense that, based on these technical and social language games, the modern
scientific culture will be constituted. Science will be set up as a new grammar of knowledge
or a new form of life, notably, under the social and technological conditions from the XV to
XVII centuries, we will find the presuppositions for the constitution of the grammar of the
scientific revolution.
To sum up, from the end of the medieval period, the new scenario brought by
capitalism made possible a new grammar of behaviors, habits, customs, and institutions in
which the new techniques that emerged created new technical language games leading to
more and more new social uses for them. In other words, in that context, the more one has
the development of new techniques – and later the technology and science in itself – the
14 In his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein distinguishes two levels of grammar: “surface
grammar” (Oberflachengrammatik) and “depth grammar” (Tiefengrammatik) (Wittgenstein 2008
[1953], § 664). Surface grammar addresses the specific characteristics of expressions without regard
to the general grammatical and social context in which these expressions are generated. On the other
hand, depth grammar is a grammar in which the rules of language are engendered in its relation to the
whole set of social, linguistic, behavioral rules.
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
54
more exponentially one saw the creation of new language games that gradually allowed for
the development of institutions and theories necessary for the construction of modern
science.
More than producing new techniques impacting society, in this new context, devices
were also created to transmit this knowledge. It is a period in which technical manuals
proliferate (Rossi 2009 [1962], 37-40). The treatises brought new terminologies, new uses,
and new social implications. Finally, new language games were constituted by sponsoring
the new social orders – which reciprocally demanded new techniques – that would virtually
form modern society. Thus, one can argue, in Wittgensteinian terms, that these new
technical language games constituted a new grammar of knowledge. At some point, the
traditional epistemological conceptions themselves would be affected by this movement,
which would become the basis to creation of modern science – of course, science itself went
beyond these technical, social and technological aspects (But the most very high theoretical
aspects are also the fruit of the same grammar).
An essential point to understanding the relevance of these new technical language
games in the construction of this grammar of knowledge (form of life), which developed
from the Renaissance, is the analysis of the issue of technique (art) as imitatio naturae
(imitation of nature) or the relationship between art and nature. The Renaissance built a new
perspective on this issue that could be analyzed, in Wittgensteinian terms, as a new
grammatical consideration (grammatische Betrachtung) (Wittgenstein 2008 [1953] § 90), or
the creation of the new grammar of knowledge. According to the Aristotelian view, in the
ancient and medieval world, techné (art) or art (ars) was conceived as the imitation of nature.
It was the “artificial” by imitation of the “natural”, particularly, the human constructs as a
copy of nature. However, in the Renaissance, with the accumulation of these new
techniques, this issue will change completely. The technique will no longer be a copy of
nature (Rossi 2009 [1962], 145-152). This process can be understood, according to the
grammar of knowledge, as a type of “autonomy of technique” over the simple exercise of
imitating nature. Understanding this process of autonomy of technique as a grammatical
consideration means that there was a change in the set of rules within the technical language
games. These new techniques now serve many social and economic purposes that do not
necessarily have as their central assumption the imitation of nature.
Although nature could be the source of inspiration and ultimately the very limits of
what can be done, this accumulation of new techniques and their social implications has
shown that it is possible to engender these new technical rules (grammar) without being an
imitation of nature. These new technical language games, as social devices, had in
themselves their own logic and purposes. In other words, it is possible to have rules that copy
nature, but also rules that do not imitate nature and yet can have consistency and are capable
of expressing and transforming their surroundings with different social modulations. Finally,
techniques are not just the imitation of nature, but also the imitation (adequacy) of society.
Not all technical and social interaction would need to be based on the Aristotelian postulate
of imitation of nature; so it was possible to codify technical processes that had, as their
specific purposes, to enable social and linguistic (pragmatic) interactions as an autonomous
system, or at least only secondarily so as to keep their references to nature.
From this viewpoint, beyond imitatio naturae, the new techniques simulate the social
structures that promote them. Like the social, the techniques as products of this society are
ruled structures (grammar), thus showing their condition as language games. It is in this
sense that technique is constituted as an extension of the social. A rule (technical, social or
linguistic) can only have a meaning and therefore be effective if it is inserted within the
context of a social praxis. In this sense, a technique is a linguistic and social extension. Indeed,
a technical device created by this society only makes sense if it reflects the linguistic and
social rules of that society. Any technical object is invested by the grammar of the society
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
55
that created it. Just as grammar is a social product, a technique is also a social product that
is governed by the rules of the society that created it. Based on this crucial point, it follows
that grammar – as a set of linguistic, social, material and behavioral rules as a whole –
establishes a social convention which, by emerging in the “rough ground” (Wittgenstein
2008 [1953] § 107) of these social practices, could be different if this praxis were otherwise
(or could be changed from one society or a form of life to another).
Rules make up our grammar come from our “patterns” of behavior, our habits,
customs, and institutions (Wittgenstein 2008 [1953], §§ 142, 199, 202, 226, 227). In ancient and
medieval societies, the rules for the construction of technical devices were simple because
their social demands and the possibilities of their institutions were also simple. These were
relatively simple societies. Therefore, there was not a higher degree of social complexity in
these contexts, which would allow them to develop their techniques. If the technique
reflects the society that created it, then noncomplex societies tend to develop simple
techniques, whereas complex societies tend to produce sophisticated techniques. Not only
is technique a language that reflects the society that created it, but the language in itself –
which orders social and technical processes – that is also a technique. “To understand a
language means to be master of a technique” (Wittgenstein 2008 [1953], § 199).
In this sense, language games and grammar are not a type of natural metaphor or
imitatio naturae. They are not a simulacrum of nature. They are an expression of human
action, to be specific, the linguistic metaphor of “grammar”, as a set of language games and
their rules, hold the idea that language (by its plasticity) is not a simple representation of
nature (although it need to place oneself within the limits of nature), but an expression of
human creative activity in its interaction with nature.
Therefore, one can conclude that modern science arose when modern society was able
to create more and more complex social and technical rules that were not necessarily limited
to be a copy of nature. The development of technique allowed us to move from the idea of
a “natural man” to an “artificial man”. As an artificial being, humans are governed not only
by their biological nature (natural being) but by their social behavior. In short, modern
science arose because the modern man was able to create new social, technological, and
linguistic rules in the new context presented by capitalism, which reached a level of
complexity that placed the idea of imitatio naturae in the background. In other words,
modern science arose when society was able to create complex rules of social behavior and
produce a knowledge of the world that was not the mirror of nature (imitatio naturae), but
rather reproduced by society itself in interaction with its environment. Finally, modern
science arose when a new grammar was created with its different and varied language
games.
The notion of grammar promotes the understanding of language from a different
perspective than the traditional conception of language based on an idea of representation
or copy of nature. From the viewpoint of grammar, there is now a social (collective)
“interaction” of mankind with nature. This position promotes a breaking of the Aristotelian
and Kantian grammar of categorization, thereby establishing a new “grammatical
consideration” (Wittgenstein, 2008 [1953] § 90) or a new point of view (neuen Aspekts)
(Wittgenstein, 1980 [1977], 18). The main point is no longer about building categories, as
Kuhn wanted by rehabilitating Kant’s ideas, but about “following the rules of the language
game” (Wittgenstein 2008 [1953] § 206) in the form of life. Following the rules, allows us to
understand the grammar that connects us to the world.
Based on the idea of grammar explained above, we can finally contest Koyré’s
metaphysical statements about the scientific revolution. As aforementioned, for the Franco-
Russian historian of science, since ancient Greece, science is mostly theory and, if technical
elements were essential to the scientific revolution, it would have occurred with the Roman
engineers a thousand years earlier. According to the grammar of knowledge, one may argue
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
56
that the Romans could not develop science because the technical and social devices at that
time would hardly have evolved enough to reach the scientific thought. Roman society did
not constitute a form of life developing the technique and its social implications to the point
of creating science. Consequently, the Romans failed to produce a scientific or experimental
form of life. Modern science arose because modern society was able to create a new social
and technological grammar that gave solid foundations to this process. Modern society has
reached a high level of complexity in its rules (material, behavioral, and linguistic). These rules
(social and technical) did not exist in the Roman empire. Indeed, science is much more than
technique or technology having important social, material, and theoretical aspects, –
although, ultimately, the theory itself is the product of this grammar of knowledge. However,
for grammar and its language games, all these aspects (social, technological, material and
theoretical) work together. In this way, one can conceive that the confluence of practical and
theoretical knowledge, as pointed out by the Zilsel thesis, brought about the advent of
science.
Conclusion
This article sought to demonstrate the importance of language in the construction of modern
science, which is called the linguistic thesis about the scientific revolution. It is assumed that
language, understood from a pragmatic perspective, provide us with useful elements to
understand how the confluence of practical knowledge from the craftsmen and artist-
engineers, and the theoretical knowledge of the philosophers – as pointed out by the Zilsel
thesis – made possible the advent of modern science. Following its purposes, the article
analyzed how the historiography of science worked the problem of language. In the next
instance, the pragmatic approach was developed, especially from a Wittgensteinian
viewpoint, as an instrument for understanding the scientific revolution. Finally, the article
sought to demonstrate that with a linguistic reinforcement of the notion of grammar, the
Zilsel thesis is an excellent tool against metaphysical theses about the scientific revolution as
defended by historians, such as Koyré or Burtt.
References
Condé, Mauro L. 2018. A gramática da história. Intelligere (6):1-10.
Condé, Mauro L. 2017. The Philosopher and the Machine: Philosophy of Mathematics and
History of Science in Alexandre Koyré. In: Raffaele Pisano, Joseph Agassi and Daria
Drozdova (Eds.), Hypotheses and Perspectives in the History and Philosophy of
Science. Springer, pp. 43-62.
Condé, Mauro L. 2004. As teias da razão: Wittgenstein e a crise da racionalidade moderna. Belo
Horizonte: Argvmentvm.
Condé, Mauro L. 1998. Wittgenstein: linguagem e mundo. São Paulo: Annablume.
Fleck, Ludwik. 1980 [1935]. Entstehung und entwicklung einer wissenschftlichen Tatsache.
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Fleck, Ludwik. 1979 [1935]. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Koyré, Alexandre. 1966 [1939]. Études galileennes. Paris: Hermann.
Koyré, Alexandre. 1971 [1961]. Études d’histoire de la pensée philosophique. Paris: Gallimard.
Koyré, Alexandre. 1973 [1966]. Étude d’histoire de la pensée scientifique. Paris: Gallimard.
Kuhn, Thomas. 2000. The Road since Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Kuhn, Thomas. 2000 [1992]. The Trouble with the Historical Philosophy of Science. In The
Road since Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
The Language of the Scientific Revolution:
A Linguistic Thesis on the Origins of the Modern Science
Mauro L. Condé
57
Kuhn, Thomas. 1979. Foreword. In: Fleck, Ludwik. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970 [1962]. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Reichenbach, Hans. 1938. Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the
Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Rossi, Paolo. 2009 [1962]. I filosofi e le macchine 1400-1700. Roma: Feltrinelli.
Shapin, Steve.; Schaffer, Simon. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the
Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shapin, Steve. 1992. Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen
through the Externalism-Internalism Debate. History of Science (30): 333-369.
Shapin, Steve. 1996. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 19807 [1977]. Culture and Value [Vermischte Bemerkungen]. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 2008 [1953]. Philosophical Investigations. Malden, Oxford, Victoria:
Blackwell.
Zilsel, Edgar. 1976. Die Socialen Ursprünge der Neutzeitlichen Wissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp.
Zilsel, Edgar. 2000 [1942]. The Sociological Roots of Science. In: Zilsel, E. The Social Origins of
Modern Science. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Edited by
Diederick Raven, Wolfgang Krohn and Robert Cohen, Dordrecht, Boston, London:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Zilsel, Edgar. 2000 [1994]. The Social Roots of Science. In: Zilsel, Edgar. 2000. The Social
Origins of Modern Science. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Edited by Diederick Raven, Wolfgang Krohn and Robert Cohen, Dordrecht, Boston,
London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.