The Scientific Revolution

The period which many historians of science call the Scientific Revolution is commonly viewed as the foundation and origin of modern science. It was a time roughly coinciding with the later part of the Middle Ages and through the Renaissance in which scientific ideas in physics, astronomy, and biology evolved rapidly.

The Scientific Revolution can be roughly dated as having begun in the 16th Century, when me like Nicholas Copernicus published his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) and Andreas Vesalius published his De humani corporis fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human body). Since the time of Voltaire, some observers have considered that a revolutionary change in thought, called in recent times as a scientific revolution, took place around the year 1600—a time coinciding with dramatic and historically rapid changes in the ways in which scholars thought about the physical world and studied it. As with many historical demarcations, historians of science disagree about its boundaries. Although the period is commonly dated to the 16th and 17th centuries, some see elements contributing to the revolution as early as the middle ages, and finding its last stages—in chemistry and biology—in the 18th and 19th centuries. There is general agreement, however, that the intervening period saw a fundamental transformation in scientific ideas in physics, astronomy, and biology, in institutions supporting scientific investigation (like the Royal Societies), and in the more widely held picture of the universe.

Science, as it is treated in this account, is essentially understood and practiced in the modern world; with various “other narratives” or alternate ways of knowing omitted.

Alexandre Koyré coined the term and definition of ‘The Scientific Revolution’ in 1939, which later influenced the work of traditional historian A. Rupert Hall and scientist J.D. Bernal and subsequent historiography on the subject (Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution, 1996). To some extent, this arises from different conceptions of what the revolution was; some of the rancor and cross-purposes in such debates may arise from lack of recognition of these fundamental differences. But it also and more crucially arises from disagreements over the historical facts about different theories and their logical analysis.

The Scientific Revolution of the late Renaissance was significant in establishing a base for many modern sciences. The scientist J. D. Bernal believed that “the renaissance enabled a scientific revolution which let scholars look at the world in a different light. Religion, superstition, and fear were replaced by reason and knowledge”. Despite some challenges to Roman Catholic dogma, however, many notable figures of time known today as the Scientific Revolution – Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and even Galileo – remained devout in their faith.

Many contemporary writers and modern historians claim that there was a revolutionary change in world view. In 1611 the English poet, John Donne, wrote:

“[The] new Philosophy calls all in doubt,
The Element of fire is quite put out;
The Sun is lost, and th’earth, and no man’s wit
Can well direct him where to look for it.”

Mid-twentieth century historian Herbert Butterfield was less disconcerted, but nevertheless saw the change as fundamental: “Since that revolution turned the authority in English not only of the Middle Ages but of the ancient world — since it started not only in the eclipse of scholastic philosophy but in the destruction of Aristotelian physics — it outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements within the system of medieval Christendom…. [It] looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality that our customary periodization of European history has become an anachronism and an encumbrance.”

More recently, sociologist and historian of science Steven Shapin opened his book, The Scientific Revolution, with the paradoxical statement: “There was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution, and this is a book about it.” Although historians of science continue to debate the exact meaning of the term, and even its validity, the Scientific Revolution still remains a useful concept to interpret the many changes in science.

The Scientific Revolution was not marked by any single change. The following new ideas contributed to what is called the Scientific Revolution:

  • The replacement of the Earth by the Sun as the center of the solar system
  • The replacement of the Aristotelian theory that matter was continuous and made up of the elements Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether by rival ideas that matter was atomistic or corpuscular (that all of reality is made of indivisible basic building blocks—atoms), or that its chemical composition was even more complex.
  • The replacement of the Aristotelian idea that by their nature, heavy bodies moved straight down toward their natural places; that by their nature, light bodies moved naturally straight up toward their natural place; and that by their nature, aethereal bodies moved in unchanging circular motions by the idea that all bodies are heavy and move according to the same physical laws (Newton’s Laws of Motion.)
  • The replacement of the Aristotelian concept that all motions require the continued action of a cause by the inertial concept that motion is a state that, once started, continues indefinitely without further cause.
  • The replacement of Galen’s treatment of the venous and arterial systems as two separate systems with William Harvey’s concept that blood circulated from the arteries to the veins “impelled in a circle, and is in a state of ceaseless motion.”

However, many of the important figures of the scientific revolution shared in the Renaissance respect for ancient learning and cited ancient pedigrees for their innovations. Copernicus (1473–1543), Kepler (1571–1630), Newton (1643–1727) and Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) all traced different ancient and medieval ancestries for the heliocentric system. In memos of his draft preparations of the second edition of the Principia Newton attributed his first law of motion and his law of gravity to a range of historical figures. According to Newton himself and other historians of science, his Principia’s first law of motion was the same as Aristotle’s counterfactual principle of interminable locomotion in a void stated in Physics 4.8.215a19-22 and was also endorsed by ancient Greek atomists and others.

As Newton expressed himself: “All those ancients knew the first law [of motion] who attributed to atoms in an infinite vacuum a motion which was rectilinear, extremely swift and perpetual because of the lack of resistance…Aristotle was of the same mind, since he expresses his opinion thus…[in Physics 4.8.215a19-22], speaking of motion in the void [in which bodies have no gravity and] where there is no impediment he writes: ‘Why a body once moved should come to rest anywhere no one can say. For why should it rest here rather than there? Hence either it will not be moved, or it must be moved indefinitely, unless something stronger impedes it.” [pg 310-11, Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, Hall & Hall, Cambridge University Press 1962.]

If correct, Newton’s view that the Principia’s first law of motion had been accepted at least since antiquity and by Aristotle refutes the traditional thesis of a scientific revolution in dynamics by Newton’s laws, that the law was denied earlier by Aristotle. The ancestor to Newton’s laws of inertia and momentum was the theory of impetus developed by the medieval scholars John Philoponus, Avicenna and Jean Buridan. The concepts of acceleration and reaction were also hypothesized by the medieval Arabic physicists, Hibat Allah Abu’l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi and Avempace.

The geocentric model remained a widely accepted model until around 1543 when a Polish astronomer by the name of Nicholas Copernicus published his book entitled “On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres.” At around the same time, the findings of Vesalius corrected the previous anatomical teachings of Galen, which were based upon the dissection of animals even though they were supposed to be a guide to the human body. Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564) was an author of one of the most influential books on human anatomy, De humani corporis fabrica.

French surgeon Ambroise Paré (c.1510–1590) is considered as one of the fathers of surgery. He was a leader in surgical techniques and battlefield medicine, especially the treatment of wounds. Anatomist William Harvey (1578–1657) described the circulatory system of the human body. Herman Boerhaave (1668–1738) is sometimes referred to as a “father of physiology” due to his exemplary teaching in Leiden and textbook ‘Institutiones medicae’ (1708).

It was between 1650 and 1800 that the science of modern dentistry developed. It is said that the 17th century French physician Pierre Fauchard (1678–1761) started dentistry science as we know it today, and he has been named “the father of modern dentistry”.

Wilhelm Schickard (1592–1635) built one of the first calculating machines in 1623. Pierre Vernier (1580–1637) was inventor and eponym of the vernier scale used in measuring devices. Evangelista Torricelli (1607–1647) was best known for his invention of the barometer. Although John Napier (1550–1617) invented logarithms, and Edmund Gunter (1581–1626) created the logarithmic scales (lines, or rules) upon which slide rules are based, it was William Oughtred (1575–1660) who first used two such scales sliding by one another to perform direct multiplication and division; and thus is credited as the inventor of the slide rule in 1622.

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) made important contributions to the construction of mechanical calculators, the study of fluids, and clarified the concepts of pressure and vacuum by generalizing the work of Evangelista Torricelli. He wrote a significant treatise on the subject of projective geometry at the age of sixteen, and later corresponded with Pierre de Fermat (1601–1665) on probability theory, strongly influencing the development of modern economics and social science. John Hadley (1682–1744) was mathematician inventor of the octant, the precursor to the sextant used by sailors in navigation. Hadley also improved the reflecting telescope, building the first Gregorian telescope.

Denis Papin (1647–1712) was best known for his pioneering invention of the steam digester, the forerunner of the steam engine. Abraham Darby I (1678–1717) was the first, and most famous, of three generations with that name in an Abraham Darby family that played an important role in the Industrial Revolution. He developed a method of producing high-grade iron in a blast furnace fuelled by coke rather than charcoal. This was a major step forward in the production of iron as a raw material for the Industrial Revolution. Thomas Newcomen (1664–1729) perfected a practical steam engine for pumping water, the Newcomen steam engine.

In 1672, Otto von Guericke (1602–1686), was the first human to knowingly generate electricity using a machine, and in 1729, Stephen Gray (1666-1736) demonstrated that electricity could be “transmitted” through metal filaments. The first electrical storage device was invented in 1745, the so-called “Leyden jar,” and in 1749, Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) demonstrated that lightning was electricity. In 1698 Thomas Savery (c.1650-1715) patented an early steam engine.

German scientist Georg Agricola (1494–1555), known as “the father of mineralogy”, published his great work “De re metallica.” Robert Boyle (1627–1691) was credited with the discovery of Boyle’s Law. He is also credited for his landmark publication The Sceptical Chymist, where he attempts to develop an atomic theory of matter. The person celebrated as the “father of modern chemistry” is Antoine Lavoisier (1743–1794) who developed his law of Conservation of mass in 1789, also called Lavoisier’s Law. Antoine Lavoisier proved that burning was caused by oxidation, that is, the mixing of a substance with oxygen. He also proved that diamonds were made of carbon and argued that all living processes were at their heart chemical reactions. In 1766, Henry Cavendish (1731-1810) discovered hydrogen. In 1774, Joseph Priestley (1733–1804) discovered oxygen.

German physician Leonhart Fuchs (1501–1566) was one of the three founding fathers of botany, along with Otto Brunfels (1489- 1534) and Hieronymus Bock (1498-1554) (also called Hieronymus Tragus). Valerius Cordus (1515–1554) authored one of the greatest pharmacopoeias and one of the most celebrated herbals in history, Dispensatorium (1546).

In his Systema Naturae, published in 1767, Carl von Linné (1707–1778) catalogued all the living creatures into a single system that defined their morphological relations to one another: the Linnean classification system. He is often called the “Father of Taxonomy”. Georges Buffon (1707-1788), was perhaps the most important of Charles Darwin’s predecessors. From 1744 to 1788, he wrote his monumental Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière, which included everything known about the natural world up until that date.

Along with the inventor and microscopist Robert Hooke (1635–1703), Sir Christopher Wren (1632–1723) and Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), English scientist and astronomer Edmond Halley (1656-1742) was trying to develop a mechanical explanation for planetary motion. Halley’s star catalogue of 1678 was the first to contain telescopically determined locations of southern stars.

Many historians of science have seen other ancient and medieval antecedents of these ideas.It is widely accepted that Copernicus’s De revolutionibus followed the outline and method set by Ptolemy in his Almagest and adapted the geocentric model of the Maragheh school in a heliocentric context, and that Galileo’s mathematical treatment of acceleration and his concept of impetus grew out of earlier medieval analyses of motion, especially those of Avicenna, Avempace, Jean Buridan, and the Oxford Calculators. Human blood circulation and pulmonary circulation were first described by Ibn al-Nafis several centuries before the scientific revolution.

The standard theory of the history of the scientific revolution claims the 17th century was a period of revolutionary scientific changes. It is claimed that not only were there revolutionary theoretical and experimental developments, but that even more importantly, the way in which scientists worked was radically changed. An alternative anti-revolutionist view is that science as exemplified by Newton’s Principia was anti-mechanist and highly Aristotelian, being specifically directed at the refutation of anti-Aristotelian Cartesian mechanism, and not more empirical than it already was at the beginning of the century or earlier in the works of scientists such as Ibn al-Haytham, Benedetti, Galileo Galilei, or Johannes Kepler.

The scientific revolution was built upon the foundation of ancient Greek and Hellenistic learning, as it had been elaborated and further developed by Roman/Byzantine science followed by medieval Islamic science and the schools and universities of medieval Europe. Though it had evolved considerably over the centuries, this “Aristotelian tradition” was still the dominant intellectual framework in 16th and 17th century Europe.

Key ideas from this period, which would be transformed fundamentally during the scientific revolution, include:

  • Aristotle’s cosmology which placed the Earth at the center of a spherical cosmos, with a hierarchical order to the Universe. The terrestrial and celestial regions were made up of different elements which had different kinds of natural movement.
  • The Ptolemaic model of planetary motion: Ptolemy’s Almagest demonstrated that geometrical calculations could compute the exact positions of the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets in the future and in the past, and showed how these computational models were derived from astronomical observations. As such they formed the model for later astronomical developments.

Historians of the Scientific Revolution traditionally maintain that the most important changes were in the way in which scientific investigation was conducted, as well as the philosophy underlying scientific developments. Among the main changes are the mechanical philosophy (under Descartes and Isaac Newton), the chemical philosophy (under Tycho Brahe, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton), empiricism, and the increasing role of mathematics.

The Aristotelian scientific tradition’s primary mode of interacting with the world was through observation and searching for “natural” circumstances. It saw what we would today consider “experiments” to be contrivances which at best revealed only contingent and un-universal facts about nature in an artificial state. Coupled with this approach was the belief that rare events which seemed to contradict theoretical models were “monsters”, telling nothing about nature as it “naturally” was. During the scientific revolution, changing perceptions about the role of the scientist in respect to nature, the value of evidence, experimental or observed, led towards a scientific methodology in which empiricism played a large role.

Under the influence of scientists and philosophers like Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen) and Francis Bacon, an empirical tradition was developed by the 16th century. The Aristotelian belief of natural and artificial circumstances was abandoned, and a research tradition of systematic experimentation was slowly accepted throughout the scientific community. Bacon’s philosophy of using an inductive approach to nature – to abandon assumption and to attempt to simply observe with an open mind – was in strict contrast with the earlier, Aristotelian approach of deduction, by which analysis of “known facts” produced further understanding. In practice, of course, many scientists (and philosophers) believed that a healthy mix of both was needed—the willingness to question assumptions, yet also interpret observations assumed to have some degree of validity.

At the end of the scientific revolution the organic, qualitative world of book-reading philosophers had been changed into a mechanical, mathematical world to be known through experimental research. Though it is certainly not true that Newtonian science was like modern science in all respects, it conceptually resembled ours in many ways—much more so than the Aristotelian science of a century earlier. Many of the hallmarks of modern science, especially in respect to the institution and profession of science, would not become standard until the mid-19th century. And yet, the foundations for modern scientific sensibilities are most clearly seen in that period of Newton and Descartes, Kepler and Tycho Brahe, Linnaeus and Pascal, Buffon and Boyle.

Experimentalism and mathematization were both stimulated by an increasing concern that knowledge of nature should be practically useful, bringing distinct benefits to its practitioners, its patrons, or even to people in general. Apart from supporting dubious medical ideas, the only use to which natural philosophy had been put throughout the Middle Ages was for bolstering religion. During the scientific revolution the practical usefulness of knowledge, an assumption previously confined to the magical and the mathematical traditions, was extended to natural philosophy. To a large extent this new emphasis was a result of the demands of new patrons, chiefly wealthy princes, who sought some practical benefit from their financial support for the study of nature. The requirement that knowledge be practically useful was also in keeping, however, with the claims of the Renaissance humanists that the vita activa (active life) was—contrary to the teachings of the Church—morally superior to the vita contemplativa (contemplative life) of the monk because of the benefits an active life could bring to others. The major spokesman for this new focus in natural philosophy was Francis Bacon, one-time Lord Chancellor of England. Bacon promoted his highly influential vision of a reformed empirical knowledge of nature that he believed would result in immense benefits to mankind.

The scientific revolution was also a period during which new organizations and institutions were established for the study of the natural world. While the universities still tended to maintain the traditional natural philosophy, the new empirical, mathematical, and practical approaches were encouraged in the royal courts of Europe and in meetings of like-minded individuals, such as the informal gatherings of experimental philosophers in Oxford and London that occurred during the 1650s. The Royal Society of London was established on a formal basis in 1660 by attendees of those earlier gatherings. Although nominally under the patronage of Charles II, the Royal Society received no financial support from the monarchy. A similar French society, the Académie des Sciences de Paris, however, was set up by Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV’s controller-general of finance, and its fellows were paid from the treasury. Whatever their precise constitution, the proliferation of collaborative scientific societies testifies to the widespread recognition that, as Bacon wrote, “knowledge is power,” and knowledge of nature is potentially extremely powerful.

These four factors—the experimental method, the mathematization of nature, the emphasis on the practical usefulness of scientific knowledge, and the development of scientific institutions—interacted with one another and were historically dependent upon one another. In combination their impact on European culture was phenomenal. To begin with, it rapidly became apparent that the traditional Aristotelian natural philosophy was completely wrong. Aristotelian teaching was so broad in scope, however, providing a ready explanation for all phenomena, that it could not simply be abandoned. New innovations and theories chipped away at Aristotelian teaching, but they were independently derived and did not hang together to provide a comprehensive alternative system. What was required was a completely new philosophy of nature that could incorporate Copernican astronomy, Galileo’s new theory of motion, Harvey’s new physiology, and all the other new discoveries, and show how they followed from certain basic assumptions. This ambition began to be realized in the early 17th century with the development of mechanical philosophy. There were a number of slightly different versions of this new philosophy, but their common foundation was the belief that the universe functions like clockwork according to rules and without outside intervention.

The most influential early version of mechanical philosophy was developed by French philosopher and scientist René Descartes. Powerful as Descartes’s system was, its conclusions, which Descartes arrived at purely by a process of abstract reasoning, were not always compatible with experimentally determined phenomena. In late 17th-century England, a more empirically based version of mechanical philosophy was developed. The success of this version was triumphantly confirmed in 1687 with the publication of Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae NaturalisPrincipia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy).

Beginning with Descartes and culminating with Isaac Newton, the development of mechanical philosophy can be seen as the foundation of the modern scientific world-view. Previously, the dominant vision of the nature of the world had been provided by religion. Natural philosophy had been merely an adjunct to religion, a means of demonstrating God’s existence and omnipotence through the study of the intricacies of nature. The fragmentation of Western Christianity after the Reformation, however, led to a weakening of religion. Furthermore, the rise of philosophical skepticism during the Renaissance quickly led to skepticism in religion.

Atheism, previously unknown in Christian Europe, gradually became an increasingly popular alternative to religion. Ironically, although all of the major figures in the scientific revolution were devoutly religious and saw their scientific work as a way of proving the existence of an omnipotent creator, the new mechanical philosophies were appropriated by atheists. Those who wished to deny the validity of the religious world-view could use the new philosophies to suggest that the world was capable of functioning in an entirely mechanistic way with no need for supernatural intervention or supervision.

Newton’s influence upon European culture was entirely unprecedented. The undeniable success of his Philosophiae NaturalisPrincipia Mathematica (1687) in understanding and describing the workings of nature convinced many that by applying the same methods, all problems could be solved, even moral, political, and economic problems. Many of the central beliefs of the Enlightenment and new social sciences developed at that time owed their origins to the powerful stimulus of Newtonian science. But all too often it was a Newtonian science devoid of the God that Newton himself had believed in. Newton was especially devout and explicitly stated that his system was intended to demonstrate the existence of God, but he was powerless to prevent the irreligious interpretation of his science. From then on the secular scientific world-view became increasingly dominant.

Herbert Butterfield, the eminent Cambridge historian, once said that the scientific revolution reduced the Renaissance and the Reformation “to the rank of mere episodes,” and that it marked “the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality.” Given the overwhelming importance of science and the scientific world-view in modern Western culture it is easy to see what he meant. The historical significance of the scientific revolution has ensured that the revolution, or some aspect of it (usually a supposed mental attitude, such as a preoccupation with rationality or measurement), figures in all attempts to explain the current dominance of the West in world culture. Although the cultural imperialism of the West might now seem to owe more to the consumerism of advanced capitalism, capitalism itself results from the success of Western science and technology. This alliance between science and technology in the West can be seen to have had its origins in the 17th-century emphasis on the usefulness of scientific knowledge for the improvement of the human condition. Naturally, there was friction between science and god. Whereas scientific pursuits claimed to further investigate, and propagate, the message of god, and enable man to fully comprehend god’s intentions, it nevertheless staked the claim of its independence and autonomy from the grasp of theology—the established “queen of the science”—as PM Harman claims. While science was mean to serve religious ends, it also led to a reappraisal of theology’s primacy and authority. As Herman declares: “The mechanistic world view of the Scientific Revolution undermined many traditional ideas about man’s place in nature. More fundamental than the establishment of any particular theory about the natural world is the change in philosophical perspective which was achieved, a new conception of man’s capacity to understand and control the world around him. The idea of man the active operator superseded the notion of man the passive spectator. The scientific movement expressed an essentially optimistic outlook, a belief in the possibility of achieving rational understanding.”

Another view has been recently proposed by Arun Bala in his history of the birth of modern science. Bala argues that the changes involved in the Scientific Revolution – the mathematical realist turn, the mechanical philosophy, the corpuscular (atomic) philosophy, the central role assigned to the Sun in Copernican heliocentrism – have to be seen as rooted in multicultural influences on Europe. Islamic science gave the first exemplar of a mathematical realist theory with Alhazen’s Book of Optics in which physical light rays traveled along mathematical straight lines. The swift transfer of Chinese mechanical technologies in the medieval era shifted European sensibilities to perceive the world in the image of a machine. The Indian number system, which developed in close association with atomism in India, carried implicitly a new mode of mathematical atomic thinking. And the heliocentric theory which assigned central status to the sun, as well as Newton’s concept of force acting at a distance, were rooted in ancient Egyptian religious ideas associated with Hermeticism. Bala argues that by ignoring such multicultural impacts we have been led to a Eurocentric conception of the Scientific Revolution. During the 17th century, however, Western Europeans overtook everyone and went much further.

Many people have tried to understand why the scientific revolution occurred when and where it did. Philosophical attempts to understand the workings of nature and the techniques of mathematical analysis reached astonishingly high levels of accomplishment among the ancient Greeks. During the Middle Ages it looked as though the civilization of Islam would build upon the Greek legacy, while Europeans ignored it. The Muslims made notable achievements in natural philosophy, chemistry, medicine, and mathematics. Meanwhile, science and technology in China were also ahead of anything in Europe. During the 17th century, however, Western Europeans overtook everyone and went much further. Historians are still struggling to understand why the Western Europeans inaugurated the scientific revolution, rather than the Greeks, Muslims, or Chinese.

Sources:

  1. Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science, 1300-1800.
  2. “Scientific Revolution” MSN 2007.
  3. Modern Western Civilisation 7: The Scientific Revolution of the 17 Century. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/lect/mod07.html)
  4. Grant, Edward. The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional, and Intellectual Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1996.
  5. Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution, (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1996)
  6. Allen G. Debus, Man and Nature in the Renaissance, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1978)
  7. Bala, Dialogue of Civilizations in the Birth of Modern Science, 2006
  8. Biographical sketches of Pascal at the University of St Andrews website: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Pascal.html
  9. Biography of Linnaeus at Berkley: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html
  10. Biography of Lavoisier at ScienceWorld: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Lavoisier.html
  11. George Saliba on the influence of Arabic thought on European Renaissance: Columbia University: http://www.columbia.edu/~gas1/project/visions/case1/sci.1.html
  12. Wikipedia
  13. Biography of Newton at the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/newton_isaac.shtml
  14. Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1980), pp. 1-39.