text:
Talk:Scientific Revolution

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Evanmayer1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aarongg20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization of title?
''The following discussion is about whether the article Scientific Revolution should be moved to Scientific revolution. Folowing the discussion the move was made on 27 July 2009.''

Scientific Revolution → Scientific revolution — Not a proper noun. — Jacob Lundberg (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC) As a beginning for the research, I made a new subsection below where we can record what we find. Finell (Talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, This was moved to the current name because of a similarity to Industrial Revolution referring to a specific time period. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a proper noun, and the capitalisation should be corrected in the text. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is a proper noun" is, in this context, devoid of semantic content. A "proper noun" simply means one which is conventionally capitalised, so that, for example, "Tuesday" is a proper noun, whereas the equivalent French "mardi" isn't. Therefore to say "this should be capitalised because it is a proper noun" amounts to "this should be capitalised because it should be capitalised".
 * The definition of proper noun is not that it's conventionally capitalized. Proper nouns are nouns that refer to "unique" entities, as opposed to common nouns that describe a class of entities. In German, for example, both proper and common nouns are always capitalized. Jafeluv (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, the situation in German is different (as it was in 17th century English), and "conventionally capitalized noun" cannot be regarded as a universally applicable definition of "proper noun". However, the point really was that what is called a "proper" noun is not an absolute, but is rather defined by convention. As far as English is concerned, the concept "proper noun" has the same extension as "conventionally capitalized noun", and the fact that the same is not so in all languages is irrelevant. The example of "Tuesday" was intended simply to illustrate the fact that the concept of "proper noun" is defined by convention rather than by a logical principle, so that the extension of the term may vary depending on what convention one follows, as it does between French and English. Another example I could have taken is "French", which is regarded as a proper noun in English, whereas the equivalent in French is regarded as a common noun. There is a lot more that could be said about this concept, which is far more complex than it looks at first glance, but it is already distinctly off topic for this page. In this case the point I was trying to make was really that those of us who regard "scientific revolution" as a proper noun will probably want it capitalized, while those of us who don't won't, so that saying that it is or is not a proper noun does not solve anything. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral, a quick scouring of sources on the revolution show conflicting results; some use the proper noun context and others do not. Whatever decision is made, I think we should alter the intro. to reflect both usages, with the ultimate article namesake taking precedence. — \`C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE `/ (talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless a usage is notable, there is no need to document it - there is no need to document every misspelling and miss-usage we can find on the web. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposed solution: I've wondered about this myself. It is premature to be voting. Rather than basing the decision on our own conclusions and opinions, we should follow the usage in the majority of the most reliable sources: current encyclopedias and other leading reference works. If usage in the most reliable sources is close to even, I suggest not capitalizing the term for two reasons:
 * 1) There is a long term trend in the English language to reduce capitalization of such "made up" proper nouns.
 * 2) British English tends to capitalize less than American English. WP:ENGVAR recommends choosing spellings and usages that are accepted in all the national varieties of English.

 * Support; it is usual in many Wikipedia projects to prefer lower case, where usage is varied.  We don't need to use capitals to call out a keyword;  we have wikilinks for that.  --Una Smith (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia has its own house style, and it is a mistake to suggest following the majority of existing encyclopedias, as has been done above. Wikipedia policy is unambiguous here: the naming conventions policy says Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is almost always capitalized in English. It is quite clear that the expression is not almost always capitalized: otherwise this discussion would not be taking place. It follows that the article must be renamed. (The brief list below begins to suggest that the majority usage supports this anyway, but even if it didn't we should follow Wikipedia policy). JamesBWatson (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per JamesBWatson above and below. Jafeluv (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage in reliable sources

 * The following sources use Scientific Revolution

 * The following sources use scientific revolution
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica (2002 CD-ROM and online editions) Finell (Talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (search results for "scientific revolution"): Lower case is the majority usage; there is some variation among the several articles, by different authors, that use the term. Finell (Talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Scientific Revolution" in Encarta: Uses lower case throughout the body of the article. Finell (Talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World: Capitalized in the article title, uncapitalized in running text. Jafeluv (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A Dictionary of British History: Uncapitalized. Jafeluv (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This change may be causing confusion
As I suggested in the discussion below, the recent lower casing of the article title may have led to confusion here between the Scientific Revolution as a specific historical period and the general concept of a scientific revolution as discussed by Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

I think the capitalization made a useful distinction and should be restored. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 * This may have been a contributory factor, but I don't see that it can have been a major cause of misunderstanding. Anyone who has read the first sentence of the lead can see that the article is about a specific historic period. just looking at the title, however, it is easy to see how it could be taken as a general term. It is not obvious to me, however, that this would be much less so if the title were capitalised. It seems to me that it the article title were "The scientific revolution" then it would be 100% clear from a first glance that it refers to a specific event. Generally Wikipedia does not use definite articles at the start of article titles, but there is provision for exceptions, and I think there is a case for making one here. WP:THE gives "If a word without a definite article would have a general meaning, while the same word has a specific and identifiable meaning ...", which, it seems to me, clearly applies here. However, it goes on to specify "...if there is justification to have separate articles for both meanings". I think there is such justification, if someone with enough relevant knowledge is prepared to write an article on the general concept. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Scientific Revolution"?
Shouldn't the Scientific Revolution be capitalized as a unique, specific time period just as the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution are?--Dustinnewman26 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Although I agree with you, you may want to consider the earlier discussion that resulted in the current form. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I just checked the Google NGram Viewer and found that the usage of fully capitalized Scientific Revolution has been growing of late, coming to surpass the lower case scientific revolution around 1995. The difference, however, never seemed to be very great.
 * Scientific Revolution Capitalization.png

 * Since the Chicago Manual of Style's usage for names of historical or cultural periods or events depends on usage (Jazz Age and Industrial Revolution but not baroque period or green revolution), our question seems to be a tossup. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I have done a further analysis of capitalization of the phrase "the scientific revolution", where the definite article "the" more clearly restricts the meaning to the historical event. In this case there has been an increasing preponderance favoring capitalization since 1985.  It isn't an obsolete usage. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The_Scientific_Revolution.png

Requested move 18 April 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Disagreement hinged on whether or not this is a proper noun. Some said it was, some said it wasn't. I took a look and I think it probably should be capitalized, but honestly to draw that conclusion from this move request would be absurd. I feel safe calling the result of this discussion "no consensus". Red Slash 22:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Scientific revolution → ? – This article address a particular era during which a number of particularly significant scientific breakthroughs were made; isn't this why, therefore, that – like the Industrial Revolution example previously given – it's given the name "Scientific Revolution" (or perhaps "The [S/s]cientific [R/r]evolution"), while "[S/s]cientific revolution" can/is used to describe/refer to any one of these and other breakthroughs across a (much) longer period (regardless of whether they merit it)...? Scan the media and popular science books, for instance... Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

 * Support If this is about a discreet historical event, title-case capitalization is appropriate. At this lowercase title, I would've expected a more general topic, such as Kuhn's theories included in the hatnote. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 *  Moderate Support for changing title to "Scientific Revolution". Title-case capitalization seems appropriate for this subject and, as discussed above, is the most common usage (although not by a strong margin). SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * After reading Sardanaphalus's justification based on the confusing nature of the current title, I've changed my recommendation to Support. In response to some comments below, Scientific Revolution is the proper name of a specific historical period.SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Support capitalization to help clarify that it's the historical period rather than Kuhn's paradigm shift.—Machine Elf 1735  01:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – we don't use caps that way in WP; we don't use title case, and we don't use caps to clarify that something is an important concept; we only use them for proper names. See MOS:CAPS.  This revolution is frequently referred to with lower case in sources, including many of the sources cited in this article, making it very clear that it is not a proper name.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the closer a source is to a printed origin, the more likely it is to use "Scientific Revolution" rather than "S/scientific revolution". Meanwhile, I don't understand how a name for this particular view of this particular period in history wouldn't qualify as a proper noun... as well as the Industrial Revolution, there seem to be other examples, such as the Commercial Revolution, Cultural Revolution and the (British) Agricultural Revolution (an instance of an agricultural revolution)..? Thanks for sharing your view. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose capitalizing: This is not actually comparable to the Industrial Revolution, which is a discrete period in general history, across all aspects of history. The scientific revolution was, as the article says, "the emergence of modern science during the early modern period", i.e. it's a discrete period in, not all of history broadly, though of course it had a profound effect upon it in the long run.  English is moving more and more away from capitalizing stuff just to make it seem important.  This is a great opportunity to be descriptive instead of prescriptive, especially not prescribing Victorian-style Capitalization of Stuff We Find Significant.  We don't need to capitalize jazz age (that's a redir, and the real article needs to be RMed) or computer revolution either.  I look forward to the day when we stop capitalizing industrial revolution for that matter, especially since it wasn't really a revolution; we're using that word figuratively, as in British invasion in pop music (that's a redir for now, and the real article needs to be moved; we don't even capitalize entire music genres, so we shouldn't do it to fads or waves in music genres).  Industrial Revolution might stay at the upper-cased name for years, along with Age of Enlightenment and a few others, but most of the rest of these things should be down-cased now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your stylistic preference but capitalization is not just an archaic way to indicate "Stuff We Find Significant." It serves the useful function of indicating that we're talking about the specific historical period, not the general concept.SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "specific" and "proper" names are not synonymous. It's also not at all clear that the scientific revolution was a "specific historical period."  It's a much more general concept applied to a long fuzzy period of time.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And it's not a specific period in general human history, but just in the history of science. Didn't I already say that? Why is it that any time a style debate comes up, the pro-weird-style position  any arguments it doesn't like instead of logically defending against them?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it seems to me that discarding "Scientific Revolution" and the like – whose capitals distinguish instance from kind – is a backward step; a loss in descriptive potential rather than an opportunity. Do you see the distinction between this and – I agree – the misuse of capitals to Capitalize Stuff Believed To Be Important, etc..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose capitalizing, per MOS:CAPS; "scientific revolution" is not a proper name. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you say something that identifies, collectively, a number of instances (of, in this case, scientific revolution) during a particular time period would be a proper name/noun..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose capitalizing . I have made a search in Google Scholar for "Scientific Revolution". The obtained listing is not case sensitive. I have examined the first 50, 43 low case, 7 capital.--Auró (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I found in the Google NGram search above, you get different results whether you're searching for "scientific revolution" or "the scientific revolution." Without the definite article you get hits on general discussions of the topic of scientific revolutions; the definite article constrains you to the Scientific Revolution of the Early Modern period. There the capitalized form predominates. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just redid your search and found that many of the lower case forms are book titles, which are listed for (apparently in catalog form) in all lower case. The titles of the books when examined, and in many cases the quotations in the search, give Scientific Revolution in upper case.  Some examples follow:
 * [BOOK] The scientific revolution
 * S Shapin - 1996 - books.google.com
 * " There was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution, and this is a book about it."
 * BOOK] Discipline and experience: The mathematical way in the scientific revolution
 * P Dear - 1995 - books.google.com
 * Although the Scientific Revolution has long been regarded as the beginning of modern science...
 * [BOOK] The scientific revolution: a historiographical inquiry
 * HF Cohen - 1994 - books.google.com
 * In this first book-length historiographical study of the Scientific Revolution...
 * [BOOK] The scientific revolution and the origins of modern science
 * J Henry, J Breuilly, R Porter - 1997 - thedivineconspiracy.org
 * The Scientific Revolution is the name given by historians of science to the period in European history when, arguably, the conceptual, methodological and institutional foundations of modern science were first established....
 * It looks like your conclusion of the preponderance of lower casing needs to be reexamined. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * J Henry, J Breuilly, R Porter - 1997 - thedivineconspiracy.org
 * The Scientific Revolution is the name given by historians of science to the period in European history when, arguably, the conceptual, methodological and institutional foundations of modern science were first established....
 * It looks like your conclusion of the preponderance of lower casing needs to be reexamined. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comments show that the proper assessment for the use of upper or lower casing for the term "scientific revolution" in the scientific literature is not a simple matter, and needs some careful consideration. Nevertheless, I feel that it is the way to follow to decide on the subject, if we are to avoid personal opinions or preferences. For the moment I suspend my opposition to the change. Also, I think that in addition to type case, the use of the article "the" has to be included in the consideration for the title change.--Auró (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

 * Could the proposer please specify what change he has in mind. The article was previously changed from Scientific Revolution to Scientific revolution and there has been previous discussion of the question of capitalization. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As this issue has a history, I avoided making a specific proposal. I imagine, though, that "Scientific Revolution", like "Industrial Revolution" is the solution. When I clicked on a link to this article, then saw its (current) name/title, I thought it'd be about what makes a scientific revolution, not the historical period. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 * If we stick with lower case, Digital Revolution should be next on the de-caps cleanup list. While it's  to mirror the usage at Industrial Revolution, that's just WP:OR+WP:CRYSTAL.  The Industrial Rev. changed the entire world, radically, in many, many ways, and a preponderance of sources capitalize it the same way they do the Renaissance.  The "digital revolution", however, is too new for us to determine what its lasting impact may be.  For all we now, a nanotechnological revolution of quantum computing and limitless "making" is around the corner and is going blow the impact of our few-decade-old dig. rev. completely out of the water.  Meanwhile, most of the predictions being made ca. 1993 about the utter transformation of the world by computers and the Internet have mostly proven to have been nothing but cyberpunk fantasies.  If anything, mobile telecommunications has had more of an impact than "the Net" and PCs in many ways.  (See also merge proposal RfC at Talk:Information revolution - the fact that some would or would not consider the mobile rev. to be part of or spearaete form the dig. rev. is part of the problem with these articles, and among the multiple reasons taht treating them as universally accepted proper names is misguided and ill-considered.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Digital Revolution" is not even close to being treated as a proper name by others. Let's fix it.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unlike "Digital Revolution" and "Scientific Revolution", "[the] digital revolution" and "[the] scientific revolution" prompt me to ask: "Which [single] digital revolution?" "Which [single] scientific revolution?". Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Question. If "Scientific Revolution" should be "S/scientific revolution", should "Industrial Revolution" become "I/industrial revolution", "Agricultural Revolution" become "A/agricultural revolution", "Commercial Revolution" become "C/commerical revolution", "Cultural Revolution" become "C/cultural revolution – and so on..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Belated answer: Probably yes, mostly, but it'll depend on contextual details. The Cultural Revolution, for example, is something different from the others; it's political sloganeering like the New Deal and other such phrases, when used in a general abstract way in discussing communism (though in some places it was actually pretty much a real, armed revolution, when used in a more specific meaning, in which case it's like the American Revolution or the Glorious Revolution, a capitalized conflict name). It presently mostly seems borderline conventional to capitalize Agricultural Revolution and Industrial Revolution as general world-changing phases of human cultural shift, but this capitalization isn't universal and certainly isn't necessary. It's also misleading, because there were multiple agricultural revolutions in different parts of the world, which sometimes had no connection to each other at all. The AR in the Americas was independent of those in Eureasia and Africa (which are generally thought to be related to each other, starting around the Fertile Crescent and radiating outward over centuries, though in fits and starts, and not in a centralized way, but through piecemeal adoption of techniques and behaviors which varies from place to place and cultural exchange to cultural exchange. And there is still some debate about this diffusing model, especially for eastern Asia and southern Africa). "Commercial revolution" is clearly not a proper name, and isn't even a very well-used term. It's a descriptive appellation for a vague period, or a series of vaguely connected cultural shifts, in one region's history, which to our modern eyes culminated one kind of shift, toward modern commerce and the ascendancy of the merchant/middle class and of capitalism. Not a term anyone would have used during or immediately after it (which makes it similar to "agricultural revolution" in being an anachronistic retro-label we've come up with in modern times, while qualitatively different from the industrial revolution, the digital revolution, etc., etc. (even "industrial revolution" was used in the 1800s, while it was still ongoing, and notably the term was introduced in a period when Capitalize Because Its Important was a typical style in English, one which has long since been abandoned except in marketing).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Scientific revolution in the modern period ?
Do we have this stage in the article?--Tranletuhan (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the article is concerned with the Scientific Revolution as a specific historical transformation that began "in 1543 and continued through the late 17th century," it wouldn't really be appropriate to extend it into the modern period.
 * I suspect you may be thinking of scientific revolutions in the generic sense, as discussed by Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
 * I wonder if the recent lower casing of the article title has led to confusion here between the Scientific Revolution as a specific historical period and the general concept of a scientific revolution. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus is that the title is a proper noun and should be capitalized. Aervanath (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Scientific revolution → Scientific Revolution – See the previous discussions above. The term "scientific revolution" can have two meanings. One sense is any major change in any field of science, such as how the introduction of the atomic model brought a scientific revolution in chemistry or the discovery of DNA led to a scientific revolution in biology. Currently the Wikipedia article describing these sorts of events is paradigm shift, someone could establish another Wikipedia article called scientific revolution (social change). Another sense of the term is the particular event called the "Scientific Revolution" which began in the late 1500s. This Wikipedia article is about that particular event which does use a proper noun.

There is debate from 2009-14 about the capitalization in this article. I agree that most sources do not capitalize the term "scientific revolution", but also some sources refer to the general concept of a scientific revolution while others which use the term as a proper noun do. The content in this Wikipedia article is about one event, and therefore the term here is a proper noun.

I wanted the move because I am developing an article about an event which sources call a modern scientific revolution in its field, and currently, there is no Wikipedia article on the general concept of "scientific revolution". There are many "scientific revolutions" in various fields of science, but there is only one "Scientific Revolution" which established modern science itself. See also that Category:Scientific revolution currently contains only articles about the 1500s, when probably we need a category for all the later developments which sources call scientific revolutions. Increasing clarity here would clarify other Wikipedia content.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC) You all commented in the past.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose – the article is already about the historical concept, not an event. And sources don't agree on there being a proper named event, though some go that way.  Accommodating your new material shouldn't require pretending that this one is a proper name.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Support- It is the title of an important historical event. We could compare it to "Industrial Revolution", that is capitalized.--Auró (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose Why has this been brought up again? All the reasons given in the previous discussion still apply just as much now as they did then, and unless there is some reason to think that things have changed since then there is no reason to repeat the same discussion. I stand by what I said in the previous discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The article still seems to describe a single event or historical period, though the lede is mealy-mouthed. Industrial Revolution doesn't have "a concept used by historians to describe the emergence of" industrial technology or anything. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support As I documented in the previous discussion, the term Scientific Revolution (in caps) is an accepted term for this well-defined historical event. Like most such events, the chronological limits of this period are somewhat uncertain, but the concept is well defined.  As to the question of why this was brought up again; it seems appropriate to periodically reconsider such topics, especially where there was close division, arising in part from the ambiguity of the proposal.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This article was created on January 14, 2002, within a day of Wikipedia's first birthday, with lowercase "r" in the main title header. On January 28, 2007, it was moved to uppercase "R", with the edit summary, "In its uncapitalized form, "scientific revolution" can refer to lots of things. Only "Scientific Revolution" is a specific event/period (cf. Industrial Revolution)." On July 27, 2009, it was moved back to lowercase "r" with the summary, "Change to correct capitalization per naming policy: discussed on article's talk page". The talk page has been in existence since January 28, 2003 and has three archived sections. The discussions, both philosophical and scientific, present well-defined arguments for uppercase and lowercase, with the uppercase argument being the more convincing one per nomination, BDD and SteveMcCluskey.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons stated above. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wild bad chronology
Note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1aa1ghl56t (talk • contribs) 10:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph, it says that Copernicus and 1543 are "often cited as marking the beginning of the Scientific Revolution".
 * Recently Usflibstudent21 has said "The Scientific Revolution was enabled by advances in book production." Pythagoras, Philolaus, Aristarchus, Seleucus and others put forward systems like that of Copernicus without printed books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1aa1ghl56t (talk • contribs) 10:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * unsourced commentary does not trump sourced scholarship. Please do not delete sourced text. See Gingerich, Owen. "Copernicus and the Impact of Printing." Vistas in Astronomy 17 (1975): 201-218.; also Corones, Anthony. "Copernicus, Printing and the Politics of Knowledge." in 1543 and All That (Springer, Dordrecht, 2000) pp. 271-289. Rjensen (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A liberal says that Pythagoras used books printed with moveable type. WP rules state that no sources are needed for statements of the obvious. Logic and chronology are obvious. Copernicus's heliostaticism is meaningless, according to relativity. I am not sure why a meaningless theory should be the beginning of anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1aa1ghl56t (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * tthe works of Pythagoras, Philolaus, Aristarchus, Seleucus and others were hand copied in a few copies and MOST were lost.  Starting with Copernicus the writings were printed in hundreds or thousands of copies and were no longer easily lost. The availability of new science grew exponentially--enabling more and more researchers to join in . that was the Scientific Revolution. People who disbelieve in science will not be at home in Wikipedia--please stay at Facebook where you will be appreciated. Rjensen (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Gingerich used 276 copies of the first edition and 325 copies of the second edition of "De revolutionibus...". It was common knowledge in Europe that Copernicus was putting forward a heliostatic system for years before 1543. Copernicus's Commentariolus was not printed before about 1878. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4E9F:D101:E1F3:325:A96A:C885 (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is generally said that Pythagoras wrote nothing. Our knowledge is derived from remarks made about him. Hence the are no "works", long-hand or printed with moveable type. See Pythagoras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1a5gkl4sz (talk • contribs) 15:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wood-block printing appeared in China in the 8th century A.D. Bi Sheng introduced printing with moveable type into China in 1040 A.D. There was no increase in the number of heliocentric or heliostatic books at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1a5gkl4sz (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

A quite comical - but nevertheless peculiar and damaging to Wikipedia's reputation - Anglocentrism in the composition of this article.
(1) The first point of concern was what I saw in the lead, unsourced it will not surprise you to learn, which makes the rather grandiose claim that "The completion of the Scientific Revolution is attributed to the "grand synthesis" of Isaac Newton's 1687 Principia." In the Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution: From Copernicus to Newton(2000, ed. W. Applebaum, Routledge, NY) I cannot find this phrase or sentiment. It continues "The work formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, thereby completing the synthesis of a new cosmology." Most certainly, but does that signify a "grand synthesis" that ended the Scientific Revolution? Perhaps, but I would be very skeptical,

(2) The first paragraph of the introduction proceeds reasonably and without controversy, highlighting how jolting, paradigm-shifting advances in science have often been term "revolutionary" (calling on the authority of conventionally celebrated figures of]the Scientific Revolution such as Alexis Clairaut and Antoine Lavoisier . However, the article then goes on to quote the English theologian and poet William Whewell... using a quote from him to say "this gave rise" to the "common view of the Scientific Revolution today", as elucidated by the Encyclopedia Britannica

(3) The next paragraph appears to me as a travesty of Original Research. Repeating my edit summary "the author of this paragraph seems to be making a lineal causal link from Copernicus to Newton to Bacon to Galileo as the "Beginning, Middle, and End" of the Scientific Revolution. Such a claim would require exquisite referencing to overcome its presumed extreme reductionism/oversimplification."

(4) In the section Significance we a treated to a conventional summation of the SR effects by one Joseph Ben-David. Followed by a 1611 poem from English religious writer John Donne (seriously!), some commentary from mid-20th-century English historian Herbert Butterfield and then we here from Australian gentleman called Peter Harrison, who largely focuses on religion and works at a 5th-rate University in Australia, who tells the reader that Christianity was a major contributor to the Scientific Revolution.

(5) In the section Empiricism, seven individuals are mentioned, all of them British, except for Descartes who is aligned against the empiricists as a rationalist (although this is not fully explained for the reader).

(6) In the section Baconian Science (what?), we are told "The philosophical underpinnings of the Scientific Revolution were laid out by Francis Bacon, who has been called the father of empiricism." Even Bacon himself acknowledged Italian philosopher Bernardino Telesio, who had influenced Pierre Gassendi long before Bacon came on the scene. Instead we are only told of Hume, Berkeley, Hobbes, and William Gilbert. As if [Condillac, Alhazen, Didorot, Helvétius, Moritz Schlick and Rudolf Carnap never existed. Also the reader would have no idea that the extreme empiricist philosophy of Berkeley for instance, would not only be intolerable to contemporary scientific minds but his theories of optics have been decisively disproven by modern medical, technological, and scientific advances.

I could go on, but I'm running out of steam. Time fae ma bed. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Not Sure how do you do responses, but to the baconian science section issue, just saying that Alhazen was not read by all of these, and the scientific revolution was adopted somewhat independently, or maybe there is some kind of link I just do not know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.83.186.34 (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article. Dan100 (Talk) 20:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the author leaned heavily on Steven Shapin's "The Scientific Revolution" - the general scope of the article follows Chapter 1, at least. That said, I would consider challenging the term "revolution" and instead consider that the events that comprised the scientific revolution were in fact more evolutionary. And to Shapin's point, the "revolution" wasn't reverting back to anything; if anything, it was refuting Aristotelian philosophy. AFineClaret (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2023
In the Wikipedia article on the "Scientific Revolution", the photo associated with the "Renaissance" hyperlink i.e. found ion the line "...The Scientific Revolution took place in Europe starting towards the second half of the Renaissance period" and the term "Scientific Renaissance" seems inappropriate, perhaps a deliberate lampoon. I would suggest another photo, perhaps of Isaac Newton. 2601:603:4C7E:4C10:1531:83E2:2047:ACE8 (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The person who loves reading (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Scientific Revolution


text:
User talk:Larry Sanger/Larry's Text

Thank goodness your interests arent purely rote, Larry, or the WP no doubt would be more less, and less more. :)-Stevert

Larry, I would like to break up the Perception section into more pieces, specifically, to separate Proprioception from the Ectosymplastic nature of Perception. -- OK?

WikiProject Philosophy
A WikiProject Philosophy has been started, in the hopes of coordinating the efforts of philosophically-inclined Wikipedians. One of the current goals of this project is to reduce the amount of Larry's Text remaining on the 'pedia. If you are interested or wish to voice a comment or concern, please drop by the project page or the talk page. — Adam Conover † 20:50, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * How up to date is the list below? It seems a bit on the long side... many of the articles linked to are quite Un-Larryed already. Thomas Ash 10:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Larry's Text pages that are still to be cleaned up:

Table of contents:

 * 2  Some Rudiments of Logic
 * college logic -- argument -- logical fallacy -- argument form -- validity -- soundness -- cogency -- good argument -- deduction and induction -- modus ponens -- modus tollens -- disjunctive syllogism -- affirming the consequent -- ambiguity -- vagueness -- genus-differentia definition -- fallacies of definition
 * 3  Metaphysics
 * introduction to metaphysics -- metaphysics -- ontology -- being -- category of being -- abstract -- concrete -- the existence of physical objects -- nonexistence -- objecthood -- substance theory -- bundle theory -- mind -- problem of universals -- universal--metaphysics -- type--metaphysics -- class (the section "classes vs. types") -- Platonic realism -- Aristotle's theory of universals -- identity and change
 * 4  Philosophy of Religion
 * philosophy of religion -- the nature of God in monotheistic religions -- eternal existence -- faith and rationality -- User:Larry Sanger/Obviously bad arguments for the existence of God -- User:Larry Sanger/Traditionally respectable arguments for the existence of God -- the ontological argument -- the cosmological argument -- the teleological argument -- the problem of evil -- the rationality of atheism -- theodicy
 * 5  Philosophy of Mind
 * philosophy of mind -- mental event -- mental functions -- consciousness -- the mind-body problem -- reduction -- monism -- neutral monism -- dualism -- dualistic interactionism -- physicalism -- philosophy of perception -- free will and determinism
 * 6  Philosophy of Language
 * proper names -- meaningfulness -- naive relativism about truth -- truth -- sense and reference
 * 7  Epistemology
 * theory of justification -- the regress argument in epistemology -- a priori and a posteriori knowledge -- knowledge -- skepticism -- common sense and the Diallelus
 * 8  Ethics
 * meta-ethics -- ethical naturalism -- cognitivism -- ethical non-naturalism -- non-cognitivism -- value theory -- theory of conduct
 * 9  Political Philosophy
 * political philosophy -- the justification of the state -- anarchism and natural law theory -- social contract theories -- consequentialist justifications of the state -- the purpose of government -- libertarianism -- socialism

Cleaned-up pages
Please delete pages here as edited into some sort of shape, leaving the list on the project page untouched for reference.

Charles Matthews 09:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it would be better if we had a separate list of pages that are reasonably cleaned-up. I've made a list below  Charles Stewart 16:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Some Rudiments of Logic
 * 2) Metaphysics
 * 3) Philosophy of Religion
 * 4) Philosophy of Mind
 * 5) Philosophy of Language
 * 6) Epistemology
 * 7) Ethics
 * 8) Political Philosophy
 * 1) Political Philosophy

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Larry Sanger/Larry's Text


text:
Ciphertext

In cryptography, ciphertext or cyphertext is the result of encryption performed on plaintext using an algorithm, called a cipher. Ciphertext is also known as encrypted or encoded information because it contains a form of the original plaintext that is unreadable by a human or computer without the proper cipher to decrypt it. This process prevents the loss of sensitive information via hacking. Decryption, the inverse of encryption, is the process of turning ciphertext into readable plaintext. Ciphertext is not to be confused with codetext because the latter is a result of a code, not a cipher.

Conceptual underpinnings
Let $$m\!$$ be the plaintext message that Alice wants to secretly transmit to Bob and let $$E_k\!$$ be the encryption cipher, where $$_k\!$$ is a cryptographic key. Alice must first transform the plaintext into ciphertext, $$c\!$$, in order to securely send the message to Bob, as follows:

 * $$c = E_k(m). \!$$

In a symmetric-key system, Bob knows Alice's encryption key. Once the message is encrypted, Alice can safely transmit it to Bob (assuming no one else knows the key). In order to read Alice's message, Bob must decrypt the ciphertext using $${E_k}^{-1}\!$$ which is known as the decryption cipher, $$D_k: \!$$

 * $$D_k(c) = D_k(E_k(m)) = m.\!$$

Alternatively, in a non-symmetric key system, everyone, not just Alice and Bob, knows the encryption key; but the decryption key cannot be inferred from the encryption key. Only Bob knows the decryption key $$D_k,$$ and decryption proceeds as

 * $$D_k(c)=m.$$

Types of ciphers
The history of cryptography began thousands of years ago. Cryptography uses a variety of different types of encryption. Earlier algorithms were performed by hand and are substantially different from modern algorithms, which are generally executed by a machine.

Historical ciphers
Historical pen and paper ciphers used in the past are sometimes known as classical ciphers. They include:

 * Substitution cipher: the units of plaintext are replaced with ciphertext (e.g., Caesar cipher and one-time pad)
 * Polyalphabetic substitution cipher: a substitution cipher using multiple substitution alphabets (e.g., Vigenère cipher and Enigma machine)
 * Polygraphic substitution cipher: the unit of substitution is a sequence of two or more letters rather than just one (e.g., Playfair cipher)
 * Transposition cipher: the ciphertext is a permutation of the plaintext (e.g., rail fence cipher)

Historical ciphers are not generally used as a standalone encryption technique because they are quite easy to crack. Many of the classical ciphers, with the exception of the one-time pad, can be cracked using brute force.

Modern ciphers
Modern ciphers are more secure than classical ciphers and are designed to withstand a wide range of attacks. An attacker should not be able to find the key used in a modern cipher, even if they know any specifics about the plaintext and its corresponding ciphertext. Modern encryption methods can be divided into the following categories:

 * Private-key cryptography (symmetric key algorithm): one shared key is used for encryption and decryption
 * Public-key cryptography (asymmetric key algorithm): two different keys are used for encryption and decryption

In a symmetric key algorithm (e.g., DES, AES), the sender and receiver have a shared key established in advance: the sender uses the shared key to perform encryption; the receiver uses the shared key to perform decryption. Symmetric key algorithms can either be block ciphers or stream ciphers. Block ciphers operate on fixed-length groups of bits, called blocks, with an unvarying transformation. Stream ciphers encrypt plaintext digits one at a time on a continuous stream of data, with the transformation of successive digits varying during the encryption process.

In an asymmetric key algorithm (e.g., RSA), there are two different keys: a public key and a private key. The public key is published, thereby allowing any sender to perform encryption. The private key is kept secret by the receiver, thereby allowing only the receiver to correctly perform decryption.

Cryptanalysis

Cryptanalysis (also referred to as codebreaking or cracking the code) is the study of applying various methodologies to obtain the meaning of encrypted information, without having access to the cipher required to correctly decrypt the information. This typically involves gaining an understanding of the system design and determining the cipher.

Cryptanalysts can follow one or more attack models to crack a cipher, depending upon what information is available and the type of cipher being analyzed. Ciphertext is generally the most easily obtained part of a cryptosystem and therefore is an important part of cryptanalysis.

Attack models

 * Ciphertext-only: the cryptanalyst has access only to a collection of ciphertexts or code texts. This is the weakest attack model because the cryptanalyst has limited information. Modern ciphers rarely fail under this attack.
 * Known-plaintext: the attacker has a set of ciphertexts to which they know the corresponding plaintext
 * Chosen-plaintext attack: the attacker can obtain the ciphertexts corresponding to an arbitrary set of plaintexts of their own choosing
 * Batch chosen-plaintext attack: where the cryptanalyst chooses all plaintexts before any of them are encrypted. This is often the meaning of an unqualified use of "chosen-plaintext attack".
 * Adaptive chosen-plaintext attack: where the cryptanalyst makes a series of interactive queries, choosing subsequent plaintexts based on the information from the previous encryptions.
 * Chosen-ciphertext attack: the attacker can obtain the plaintexts corresponding to an arbitrary set of ciphertexts of their own choosing
 * Adaptive chosen-ciphertext attack
 * Indifferent chosen-ciphertext attack
 * Related-key attack: similar to a chosen-plaintext attack, except the attacker can obtain ciphertexts encrypted under two different keys. The keys are unknown, but the relationship between them is known (e.g., two keys that differ in the one bit).

Famous ciphertexts

 * The Babington Plot ciphers
 * The Shugborough inscription
 * The Zimmermann Telegram
 * The Magic Words are Squeamish Ossifrage
 * The cryptogram in "The Gold-Bug"
 * Beale ciphers
 * Kryptos
 * Zodiac Killer ciphers

title: Ciphertext


text:
User:Dfeather

David (Dohii) Feather 1955-, Cook, programmer, entrepreneur,spy

Born in a dilapidated log cabin in snowy woods, ...

title: User:Dfeather


text:
The Joy of Work

The Joy of Work (1998) by Scott Adams is a two-part book. The first part offers recommendations as to how office workers can find happiness at their cubicle desks and the second part is a formula for creating humor, based on the author's experience penning the Dilbert comic strip.

Synopsis
The title is a comic reference to the 1972 sex manual The Joy of Sex. The first part of the book explains "how to find happiness at the expense of your co-workers", including how to deal with superiors, meetings and co-workers and how to avoid work while having fun; an entire chapter is devoted to office pranks. The second part is an analysis of humor and how to write funny material. Adams writes, "The third part of the book is made entirely out of invisible pages. If the book seems heavier than it looks, that's why."

The book includes a response to Norman Solomon, who attempted to depict Scott Adams as a proponent of downsizing in his 1997 book, The Trouble with Dilbert. People who were offended by certain Dilbert strips are also addressed, with Adams concluding that it is the "proximity" of sensitive subjects to negative concepts that causes "people who are angry for no good reason (nuts)" to take offense.

title: The Joy of Work


text:
User talk:Dfeather

Did you write the "Yuppie Philosophy" page? I sent it rounf to people at work & they thought it was good.

People were complaining hat I didn't have a tag, but I thought I couldn't get one because I didn't have an e-mail address, LOL.

Meanwhile the entire venemous thread disappears!

title: User talk:Dfeather


text:
Bhakti

Bhakti (भक्ति; Pali: bhatti) is a term common in Indian religions which means attachment, fondness for, devotion to, trust, homage, worship, piety, faith, or love. In Indian religions, it may refer to loving devotion for a personal God (like Krishna or Devi), a formless ultimate reality (like Nirguna Brahman or the Sikh God) or for an enlightened being (like a Buddha, a bodhisattva, or a guru). Bhakti is often a deeply emotional devotion based on a relationship between a devotee and the object of devotion.

One of the earliest appearances of the term is found in the early Buddhist Theragatha (Verses of the Elders). In ancient texts such as the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the term simply means participation, devotion and love for any endeavor, while in the Bhagavad Gita, it connotes one of the possible paths of spirituality and towards moksha, as in bhakti marga.

Bhakti ideas have inspired many popular texts and saint-poets in India. The Bhagavata Purana, for example, is a Krishna-related text associated with the Bhakti movement in Hinduism. Bhakti is also found in other religions practiced in India, and it has influenced interactions between Christianity and Hinduism in the modern era. Nirguni bhakti (devotion to the divine without attributes) is found in Sikhism, as well as Hinduism. Outside India, emotional devotion is found in some Southeast Asian and East Asian Buddhist traditions.

The term also refers to a movement, pioneered by the Tamil Alvars and Nayanars, that developed around the gods Vishnu (Vaishnavism), Shiva (Shaivism) and Devi (Shaktism) in the second half of the 1st millennium CE.

Devotional elements similar to bhakti have been part of various world religions throughout human history. Devotional practices are found in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism   and Judaism.

Terminology
The Sanskrit word bhakti is derived from the verb root bhaj-, which means "to worship, have recourse to, betake onself to" or bhañj-, which means "to break." The word also means "attachment, devotion to, fondness for, homage, faith or love, worship, piety to something as a spiritual, religious principle or means of salvation".

The meaning of the term Bhakti is analogous to but different from Kama. Kama connotes emotional connection, sometimes with sensual devotion and erotic love. Bhakti, in contrast, is spiritual, a love and devotion to religious concepts or principles, that engages both emotion and intellection. Karen Pechelis states that the word Bhakti should not be understood as uncritical emotion, but as committed engagement. She adds that, in the concept of bhakti in Hinduism, the engagement involves a simultaneous tension between emotion and intellection, "emotion to reaffirm the social context and temporal freedom, intellection to ground the experience in a thoughtful, conscious approach". One who practices bhakti is called a bhakta.

The term bhakti, in Vedic Sanskrit literature, has a general meaning of "mutual attachment, devotion, fondness for, devotion to" such as in human relationships, most often between beloved-lover, friend-friend, king-subject, parent-child. It may refer to devotion towards a spiritual teacher (Guru) as guru-bhakti, or to a personal God, or for spirituality without form (nirguna).

According to the Sri Lankan Buddhist scholar Sanath Nanayakkara, there is no single term in English that adequately translates or represents the concept of bhakti in Indian religions. Terms such as "devotion, faith, devotional faith" represent certain aspects of bhakti, but it means much more. The concept includes a sense of deep affection, attachment, but not wish because "wish is selfish, affection is unselfish". Some scholars, states Nanayakkara, associate it with saddha (Sanskrit: Sraddha) which means "faith, trust or confidence". However, bhakti can connote an end in itself, or a path to spiritual wisdom.

The term Bhakti refers to one of several alternate spiritual paths to moksha (spiritual freedom, liberation, salvation) in Hinduism, and it is referred to as bhakti marga or bhakti yoga. The other paths are Jnana marga (path of knowledge), Karma marga (path of works), Rāja marga (path of contemplation and meditation).

The term bhakti has been usually translated as "devotion" in Orientalist literature. The colonial era authors variously described Bhakti as a form of mysticism or "primitive" religious devotion of lay people with monotheistic parallels. However, modern scholars state "devotion" is a misleading and incomplete translation of bhakti.

Many contemporary scholars have questioned this terminology, and most now trace the term bhakti as one of the several spiritual perspectives that emerged from reflections on the Vedic context and Hindu way of life. Bhakti in Indian religions is not a ritualistic devotion to a God or to religion, but participation in a path that includes behavior, ethics, mores and spirituality. It involves, among other things, refining one's state of mind, knowing God, participating in God, and internalizing God. Increasingly, instead of "devotion", the term "participation" is appearing in scholarly literature as a gloss for the term bhakti.

Bhakti is an important term in Sikhism and Hinduism. They both share numerous concepts and core spiritual ideas, but bhakti of nirguni (devotion to divine without attributes) is particularly significant in Sikhism. In Hinduism, diverse ideas continue, where both saguni and nirguni bhakti (devotion to divine with or without attributes) or alternate paths to spirituality are among the options left to the choice of a Hindu.

The Upanishads
The last of three epilogue verses of the Shvetashvatara Upanishad (6.23), dated to be from 1st millennium BCE, uses the word Bhakti as follows:

"yasya deve parā bhaktiḥ yathā deve tathā gurau । tasyaite kathitā hyarthāḥ prakāśante mahātmanaḥ

He who has highest Bhakti of Deva (God), just like his Deva, so for his Guru (teacher), To him who is high-minded, these teachings will be illuminating."

This verse is one of the earliest use of the word Bhakti in ancient Indian literature, and has been translated as "the love of God". Scholars have debated whether this phrase is authentic or later insertion into the Upanishad, and whether the terms "Bhakti" and "Deva" meant the same in this ancient text as they do in the modern era. Max Muller states that the word Bhakti appears only once in this Upanishad, that too in one last verse of the epilogue, could have been a later addition and may not be theistic as the word was later used in much later Sandilya Sutras. Grierson as well as Carus note that the first epilogue verse 6.21 of the Shvetashvatara Upanishad is also notable for its use of the word Deva Prasada (देवप्रसाद, grace or gift of God), but add that Deva in the epilogue of the Shvetashvatara Upanishad refers to "pantheistic Brahman" and the closing credit to sage Shvetashvatara in verse 6.21 can mean "gift or grace of his Soul".

Post-Vedic movement
Scholarly consensus sees bhakti as a post-Vedic movement that developed primarily during the Hindu Epics and Puranas era of Indian history (late first mill. BCE-early first mill. CE).

The Bhagavad Gita is the first text to explicitly use the word "bhakti" to designate a religious path, using it as a term for one of three possible religious approaches or yogas (i.e. bhakti yoga).

The Bhagavata Purana (which focuses on Krishna bhakti) develops the idea more elaborately, while the Shvetashvatara Upanishad presents evidence of guru-bhakti (devotion to one's spiritual teacher).

Bhakti movement

The Bhakti Movement was a rapid growth of bhakti, first starting in the later part of 1st millennium CE, from Tamil Nadu in southern India with the Shaiva Nayanars and the Vaishnava Alvars. Their ideas and practices inspired bhakti poetry and devotion throughout India over the 12th-18th century CE. The Alvars ("those immersed in God") were Vaishnava poet-saints who wandered from temple to temple, singing the praises of Vishnu. They hailed the divine abodes of Vishnu and converted many people to Vaishnavism.

Like the Alvars, the Shaiva Nayanar poets were influential. The Tirumurai, a compilation of hymns by sixty-three Nayanar poets, is still of great importance in South India. Hymns by three of the most prominent poets, Appar (7th century CE), Campantar (7th century) and Sundarar (9th century), were compiled into the Tevaram, the first volumes of the Tirumurai. The poets' itinerant lifestyle helped create temple and pilgrimage sites and spread devotion to Shiva. Early Tamil-Shiva bhakti poets quoted the Krishna Yajurveda. The Alvars and Nayanars were instrumental in propagating the Bhakti tradition. The Bhagavata Purana's references to the South Indian Alvar saints, along with its emphasis on bhakti, have led many scholars to give it South Indian origins, though some scholars question whether this evidence excludes the possibility that bhakti movement had parallel developments in other parts of India.

Scholars state that the bhakti movement focused on Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti and other deities, that developed and spread in India, was in response to the arrival of Islam in India about 8th century CE, and subsequent religious violence. This view is contested by other scholars.

The Bhakti movement swept over east and north India from the fifteenth-century onwards, reaching its zenith between the 15th and 17th century CE. According to Patton Burchett, the four key features of this early modern bhakti movement in north India were: First and foremost, these communities were united by a distinctive focus on personal devotion to the Divine, as opposed to other traditional pillars of Indic religiosity such as knowledge, ritual, or the practice of yoga or asceticism. This devotion took place in the context of an intimate, loving relationship with the Divine in which caste, class, or gender typically were said to have no place. This was a bhakti that found its most characteristic expression in (a) the context of spiritual fellowship (satsaṅg) with other devotees (bhaktas), (b) the medium of song, (c) the idiom of passionate love (śṛṅgāra/mādhurya) or painful separation (viraha), and (d) the remembrance—in meditation, recitation, chant, and song—of the name(s) of God. Second, these new devotional communities of Mughal India were alike in their production and performance of devotional works, composed in vernacular languages, remembering the deeds of God (especially Kṛṣṇa and Rām) and exemplary bhaktas. Third, important in all these communities was the performance and collection of songs attributed to renowned bhakti poet-saints like Kabīr, Raidās, and Sūrdās. Finally, despite their many differences, the vast majority of bhakti authors and sectarian communities in early modern North India came together in articulating a devotional sensibility distinct from—and often explicitly positioned in opposition to—certain tantric paradigms of religiosity. Bhakti poetry and ideas influenced many aspects of Hindu culture, religious and secular, and became an integral part of Indian society. It extended its influence to Sufism, Christianity, and Jainism. Sikhism was founded by Guru Nanak in the 15th century, during the bhakti movement period, and scholars call it a Bhakti sect of Indian traditions.

Saints such as Mirabai, Soordas, Narsinh Mehta composed several bhajans that were a path towards Bhakti for many, that are universally sung even today. A modern age saint, Shri Devendra Ghia (Kaka) has composed about 10,000 hymns. These hymns are related to bhakti, knowledge, devotion, faith, introspection and honesty.

The movement has traditionally been considered as an influential social reformation in Hinduism, and provided an individual-focused alternative path to spirituality regardless of one's birth caste or gender. Postmodern scholars question this traditional view and whether the Bhakti movement were ever a social reform or rebellion of any kind. They suggest Bhakti movement was a revival, reworking and recontextualization of ancient Vedic traditions.

Bhakti Yoga
The Bhagavad Gita introduces bhakti yoga in combination with karma yoga and jnana yoga, while the Bhagavata Purana expands on bhakti yoga, offering nine specific activities for the bhakti yogi. Bhakti in the Bhagavad Gita offered an alternative to two dominant practices of religion at the time: the isolation of the sannyasin and the practice of religious ritual. Bhakti Yoga is described by Swami Vivekananda as "the path of systematized devotion for the attainment of union with the Absolute". In various chapters, including the twelfth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna describes bhakti yoga as one of the paths to the highest spiritual attainments. In the sixth chapter, for example, the Gita states the following about bhakti yogi: "The yogi who, established in oneness, Honors Me as abiding in all beings, In whatever way he otherwise acts, Dwells in Me.

He who sees equality in everything, In the image of his own Self, Arjuna, Whether in pleasure or in pain, Is thought to be a supreme yogi.

Of all yogis, He who has merged his inner Self in Me, Honors me, full of faith, Is thought to be the most devoted to Me."

The Shandilya Bhakti Sutra and Narada Bhakti Sutra define devotion, emphasize its importance and superiority, and classify its forms.

According to Ramana Maharishi, bhakti is a "surrender to the divine with one's heart". It can be practiced as an adjunct to self-inquiry, and in one of four ways:
 * 1) Atma-Bhakti: devotion to the one's atma (Supreme Self)
 * 2) Ishvara-Bhakti: devotion to a formless being (God, Cosmic Lord)
 * 3) Ishta Devata-Bhakti: devotion to a personal God or goddess
 * 4) Guru-Bhakti: devotion to Guru

Nine forms of Bhakti
The Bhagavata Purana (verse 7.5.23) teaches nine forms of bhakti: • # śravaṇa (listening to ancient texts)

• # kīrtana (praying)

• # smaraṇa (remembering teachings in ancient texts)

• # pāda-sevana (service to the feet)

• # archana (worshiping)

• # namaskar or vandana (bowing to the divine)

• # dāsya (service to the divine)

• # sākhyatva (friendship with the divine)

• # ātma-nivedana (self-surrender to the divine)

The Bhagavata Purana describes many examples of bhakti, such as those exhibited by Prahlada and the gopis. The behavior of the gopis in the Bhagavata Purana exemplifies the essence of bhakti. When separated from Krishna, the gopis practiced devotion by listening to his stories (śravaṇa), praising his glorious deeds (kīrtana), and other acts to keep him in their thoughts.

Bhavas
Traditional Hinduism speaks of five different bhāvas or "affective essences". In this sense, bhāvas are different attitudes that a devotee takes according to his individual temperament to express his devotion towards God in some form. The different bhāvas are:
 * 1) śānta, placid love for God;
 * 2) dāsya, the attitude of a servant;
 * 3) sakhya, the attitude of a friend;
 * 4) vātsalya, the attitude of a mother towards her child;
 * 5) madhurya, the attitude of a woman towards her lover.

Several saints are known to have practiced these bhavas. The nineteenth century mystic, Ramakrishna is said to have practiced these five bhavas. The attitude of Hanuman towards the god Rama is considered to be of dasya bhava. The approach of Arjuna and the cowherd boys of Vrindavan with the god Krishna is regarded as sakhya bhava. Radha's love towards Krishna is madhurya bhava. The attitude of Krishna's foster-mother Yashoda towards him exemplifies vatsalya bhava. The Chaitanya Charitamrita mentions that Chaitanya came to distribute the four spiritual sentiments of Vraja loka: dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, and sringara. Sringara is the relationship of the intimate love.

Murti
In bhakti worship, rituals are primarily directed towards physical images. The terms "murti" and "vigraham" are commonly used in Hinduism to describe these images. A murti denotes an object with a distinct form that symbolizes the shape or manifestation of a particular deity, either a god or goddess. A ritual called pranapratishta is performed before worshipping a murti, establishing prana (life force) into the image and inviting the god or goddess to reside in the murti.

Buddhism

Bhakti (bhatti in Pali) has always been a common aspect of Buddhism, where offerings, prostrations, chants, and individual or group prayers are made to the Buddha and bodhisattvas, or to other Buddhist deities. According to Karel Werner Buddhist bhakti "had its beginnings in the earliest days". Perhaps the earliest mention of the term bhatti in all Indic literature appears in the early Buddhist Theragatha (Verses of the Elders). As such, Har Dayal writes that, bhakti "was an integral part of the Buddhist ideal from the earliest times". John S. Strong writes that the central meaning of Indian Buddhist bhakti was "recollection of the Buddha" (Sanskrit: buddhanusmrti).

One of the earliest form of Buddhist devotional practice was the early Buddhist tradition of worshiping the Buddha through the means of stupas and bodily relics (sarira). Later (after about the third century CE), devotion using Buddha images also became a very popular form of Buddha bhakti.

Sri Lankan scholar Indumathie Karunaratna notes that the meaning of bhatti changed throughout Buddhist history. In early Buddhist sources like the Theragāthā, bhatti had the meaning of 'faithful adherence to the [Buddhist] religion', and was accompanied with knowledge. Later on, however, the term developed the meaning of an advanced form of emotional devotion. This sense of devotion was thus different than the early Buddhist view of faith.

According to Sanath Nanayakkara, early Buddhist refuge and devotion, meant taking the Buddha as an ideal to live by, rather than the later sense of self-surrender. But already in the Commentary to the Abhidhamma text Puggalapaññatti, it is mentioned that the Buddhist devotee should develop his saddhā until it becomes bhaddi, a sense not mentioned in earlier texts and probably influenced by the Hindu idea of bhakti. There are instances where commentator Buddhaghosa mentions taking refuge in the Buddha in the sense of mere adoration, indicating a historical shift in meaning. Similar developments in Buddhist devotion took place with regards to worshipping the Buddha's relics and Buddha images.

In later faith-oriented literature, such as the Avadānas, faith is given an important role in Buddhist doctrine. Nevertheless, faith (śraddhā) is discussed in different contexts than devotion (bhakti). Bhakti is often used disparagingly to describe acts of worship to deities, often seen as ineffective and improper for a Buddhist. Also, bhakti is clearly connected with a person as an object, whereas śraddhā is less connected with a person, and is more connected with truthfulness and truth. Śraddhā focuses on ideas such as the working of karma and merit transfer. One source for Indian Buddhist devotion is the Divyāvadāna, which focuses on the vast amount of merit () that is generated by making offerings to Buddhas, stupas and other Buddhist holy sites.

This text contrasts faith in the Buddha with bhakti for mundane deities (such as Hindu gods), and in this case, it sees bhakti as something for those who are less developed spiritually. However, in other passages, the term is used positively, and in one story, the sage Upagupta says to the demon Mara: Even a very small bit of bhakti [toward the Buddha] offers nirvana to the wise as a result. In short, the wicked things that you [Māra] did here to the Sage, when your mind was blind with delusion, all of these have been washed away by the copious waters of śraddhā that have entered your heart.

- Divyāvadāna 360.1–4 [Aśokāvadana 22.7-9] In the 11th century, the Bengali Buddhist scholar Rāmancandra Kavibhārati composed a work on Buddhist bhakti called the Bhakti Śataka.

Today, affective devotion remains an important part of Buddhist practice, even in Theravada Buddhism. According to Winston King, a scholar on Theravāda in Myanmar, "warm, personalized, emotional" bhakti has been a part of the Burmese Buddhist tradition apart from the monastic and lay intellectuals. The Buddha is treasured by the everyday devout Buddhists, just like Catholics treasure Jesus. The orthodox teachers tend to restrain the devotion to the Buddha, but to the devout Buddhist populace, "a very deeply devotional quality" was and remains a part of the actual practice. This is observable, states King, in "multitudes of Pagoda worshippers of the Buddha images" and the offerings they make before the image and nowhere else.

In Mahayana Buddhism

A rich devotionalism developed in Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism and it can be found in the veneration of the transcendent Buddha Amitabha of Pure Land Buddhism and of bodhisattvas like Mañjusri, Avalokiteshvara (known as Guanyin in East Asia and Chenrezig in Tibetan) and the goddess Tara. Mahayana sources like the Lotus Sutra describe the Buddha as the loving father of all beings, and exhorts all Buddhists to worship him.

Mahayana bhakti also led to the rise of temples which were focused on housing a central Buddha image, something which became the norm during the Gupta period. Gupta era Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism stressed bhakti towards the Buddha as a central virtue and liberally made use of Buddha images, which are often accompanied by attendant bodhisattvas.

These new developments in Buddhist bhakti may have been influenced by the pan-Indian bhakti movement, and indeed, many Gupta monarchs, who were devoted to the Vaishnava Bhagavata religion also supported Buddhist temples and founded monasteries (including great ones like Nalanda). Buddhists were in competition with the Hindu religions of the time, like the Bhagavatas and Shaivas, and they developed Buddhist bhakti focused on the Buddhas and bodhisattvas in this religious environment.

Mahāyāna interprets Buddhahood as a transcendent and eternal state (as found in the Lotus Suta) and is also equated with the ultimate reality (Dharmakaya). Bodhisattvas were also considered to be extremely powerful divinities that could grant boons and rescue people from danger. This shift towards devotion to a transcendent being in later Buddhism has been seen as being similar to theistic forms of Hindu bhakti. Mahayana Buddhist bhakti was also sometimes aimed at a Mahayana sutra, such as the Prajñaparamita sutra and the Lotus Sutra.

Some sources, like the Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra, even state that through devotion to the Buddha Amitabha one can attain rebirth in his Pure Land and here one can be purified of all negative karma and eventually attain Buddhahood. As such, they make Buddha bhakti a central element of their soteriology. Bhakti in these sutras supersedes the making of good karma and cultivation of the path in favor of devotion to the Buddha Amitabha who can lead one to liberation in the Pure Land. This eventually came to be seen as its own path to liberation, its own mārga, often called the "easy path". A text attributed to Nagarjuna, the *Dasabhumikavibhāsā (Chinese: Shí zhù pípóshā lùn 十住毘婆沙論, T.1521) teaches the "easy practice" which is simply being constantly mindful of the Buddhas.

All of these ideas became the foundation for the later development of East Asian Pure Land Buddhism.

Mahayana Buddhist bhakti is grounded in the Mahayana ideals of the bodhisattva, bodhicitta (the mind aimed at awakening for the benefit of all beings) and skillful means (upaya). Mahayana bhakti practices include various forms of ritual pujas and prayers. The Mahayana form of the practice of Buddhānusmṛti (remembering the Buddha) could include visualization practices and recitation of the names of a Buddha or bodhisattva (as in nianfo) was also a common method of devotional practice taught in numerous Indian sources.

One common puja and prayer format in Indian Mahayana was the "seven part worship" (saptāṇgapūjā or saptavidhā anuttarapūjā). This often included various offerings of flowers, food, scents, and music. This ritual form is visible in the works of Shantideva (8th century) and includes:

 * Vandana (obeisance, bowing)
 * Puja (ritual worship with offerings etc.)
 * Sarana-gamana (going for refuge)
 * Papadesana (confession of bad deeds)
 * Punyanumodana (rejoicing in merit of the good deeds of oneself and others)
 * Adhyesana (prayer, entreaty) and yacana (supplication) – request to Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to continue preaching Dharma
 * Atmabhavadi-parityagah (surrender) and pariṇāmanā (the transfer of one's Merit to the welfare of others)

Devotion to the Buddhas and bodhisattvas continued to be a major part of the later Vajrayana Buddhist traditions of tantra. Vajrayana Buddhism also added another form of bhakti to their teachings: guru bhakti (i.e. guru yoga), devotion towards the tantric guru. In India, various forms of devotion were practiced, including tantric songs of realization called Charyagitis. These first arose in the so called called Charyapadas of medieval Bengali Sahajiya Buddhism.

As such, both in Tibetan Buddhism and East Asian Buddhism, there remains a strong tradition of devotional veneration of various Buddhas and bodhisattvas (which includes making offerings and chanting their names or mantras), and this is one of the most popular forms of lay Buddhist practice.

Jainism
Bhakti has been a prevalent ancient practice in various Jaina sects, wherein learned Tirthankara (Jina) and human gurus have been venerated with offerings, songs and Āratī prayers.

Jainism participated in the Bhakti school of medieval India, and has a rich tradition of bhakti literature (stavan) though these have been less studied than those of the Hindu tradition. The Avasyaka sutra of Jains includes, among ethical duties for the devotee, the recitation of "hymns of praise to the Tirthankaras" as the second Obligatory Action. It explains this bhakti as one of the means to destroy negative karma. According to Paul Dundas, such textual references to devotional activity suggests that bhakti was a necessary part of Jainism from an early period.

According to Jeffery D. Long, along with its strong focus on ethics and ascetic practices, the religiosity in Jainism has had a strong tradition of bhakti or devotion just like their Hindu counterparts. The Jain community built ornate temples and prided in public devotion for its fordmakers, saints and teachers. Abhisekha, festival prayers, community recitals and Murti puja (rituals before an image) are examples of integrated bhakti in Jain practice. Some Jain monks, however, reject Bhakti.

title: Bhakti