Enlightenment thinkers critiqued Renaissance and Classical philosophers for their reliance on deductive reasoning, which did not leave any room for self-correction. Francis Bacon and Renee Descartes both proposed and supported the method of inductive reasoning. In The Inductive Method, Bacon said that “in forming an axiom we need to work out a different form of induction from the one now in use” (193). Furthermore, Enlightenment philosophers did not seek validation in the texts of Greek philosophers nor the church, as did Renaissance thinkers. For example, Newton and Descartes both came us with new laws of motion that challenged Aristotle’s theories. Descartes theories were especially influential in that they shifted physics to view nature as a machine rather than simply serve a purpose. Two new methodologies of science rose to the debate as well: empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism was based on a posteriori, or experiential, knowledge, which rationalism was based on a priori, or innate, knowledge. In general, Enlightenment thinking sought to prove theories beyond doubt, but still leave room for revision if new information were to arise. This new scientific method allowed philosophers to …show more content…
Philosophers began to ask “how does something work?” rather than “why does something to exist?” Both periods took revolutionary steps forward for the worlds of science and philosophy. By the end of the Enlightenment, people began to believe that the universe was truly discoverable and understandable, and that it was just waiting for humans to explore its