It seems to me in my opinion that the masses of people have placed a set conditioned or predetermined notion that individuals have to think the same exact or similar way as the majority of people or otherwise be outcasted and labeled. Furthermore, to have a difference of opinion seems to be taboo especially in the scientific community in my opinion it could be attribute to popular culture. From what I can understand Shapin Stevens perspective was that in the timeline of history development of science that "The Scientific Revolution" was no set specific event, but more along the lines of gradual process that evolved through time with trial and errors (Shapin, 2008). Next, "The Scientific Revolution" was written about, because of historians becoming dissatisfied with traditional ways of conceptualizing (Shapin, 2008) I do feel as though the work was written to also add to the progression of development in the scientific field as it relates to the revolutionary developments in science. Shapin came with a different view of science from what I can understand prior to Shaping the majority of the world had a certain format of thinking when it came to science and nature so Shapin seem to feel as though there isn't a single concise concept or thinking of science. Additionally, cultural causes that contributed to "The Scientific Revolution" had four factors that consist of freedom of thought, interaction among different cultures, resurgence of the Greek beliefs on human reason, and religion (Bowles & Kaplan, 2012). I think when individuals are forced to confirm in manner that they feel their rights are infringed upon that is when some form of a revolution begins.
Shapin seems to understand that it was a time or era of discovery the people label as the Scientific Revolution containing a variety of concepts, and thought process a baseline re-organizing of the perception about the natural or organic (Shapin, 2008). Furthermore, Shapin demonstrates that a conglomerate of scholars united to manifest ideologies, and then began test or put those ideologies into practice to give to people an abundance of information seemingly sometimes much more then actually documented or proven. Revolution to me is a revolt or rejecting of something in which "The Scientific Revolution" is a revolt of old or dated scientific ways of thinking while introducing a rapid change in which science is viewed predicated upon. Shapin attributes new concepts to such scholars as Galileo also to Copernicus in that (Shapin, 2008) I would say that in my opinion the "The Scientific Revolution" started with either the Sumerians or Egyptians then went over to other ancient civilizations in a trickle down effect to whatever Civilization that is in power at the time. Furthermore, I think that each civilization took the previous civilization's existing science, and added their own perspective on science. To me just because a scientific concept that has been in existing prior to a new revolutionary concept doesn’t make the older concept wrong though many older concepts are being tested and found to be in accurate, however the new scientific concepts has also been proven to be false such as the moon emitting its own light or there is a inner earth.
Reference:
1.) Shapin, S. (2008). Introduction. In The Scientific Revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Retrieved from https://monoskop.org/images/1/13/Shapin_Steven_The_Scientific_Revolution.pdf
2.) Bowles, M. & Kaplan, B. (2012). Science and culture throughout history.
Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/AULIB332.12.1/sections/sec1.2?search=influence#w2393