Bilim Devrimi Tartışması: Bir Tarihyazımı Analizi

This article first explores the origins of the Scientific Revolution narrative and the prevailing tendency in contemporary historiography of science to reject it. It then compares several influential interpretations (those of Koyré, Conner, Shapin, and Wootton), along with the historiographical approaches underpinning them. This comparison aims to illustrate the methodological shift from an internalist–externalist dichotomy toward social constructivist sensibilities, and how this shift has reshaped the narrative of the Scientific Revolution. The article subsequently evaluates common counter-arguments in the literature that challenge the validity of the Scientific Revolution as a historical category. In conclusion, it argues that, despite some well-founded criticisms, the framework of the Scientific Revolution remains a plausible historical category. Moreover, it maintains that the most credible account is one that transcends essentialist and internalist perspectives by recognizing the determining role of social factors.