It is time for another look at the Scientific Revolution and Newton. The immediate occasion for further discussion of this perennial issue is Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs's 1994 essay in Isis and Richard S. Westfall's reply, both appearing in this volume. These two giants in the modern-day history of science, both now sadly deceased, disagreed about the meaningfulness of the concept of “the” Scientific Revolution – the “big one” that happened between Copernicus and Newton. Dobbs was conspicuously critical of the generalizations of historians who emphasized the notion of the Scientific Revolution at the expense of the particularity and uniqueness of the individuals crushed beneath the weight of this venerable, grand theory. She didn't buy into the concept except with reservations. It was too anachronistic, she claimed, following Cohen. It was also too metaphorical and, therefore, problematic, to talk – along with Whiggish historians such as Butterfield and a host of others – about a revolution that portrays “a change that is sudden, radical, and complete.” Worst of all, exponents of the Scientific Revolution, distorted the highly individualized genius of Newton and appropriated him into their theory as either the heroic “First Mover” of the great change or as the heroic “Final Cause” of the Scientific Revolution.

In his typically gallant manner, Richard S. Westfall politely disagreed and firmly continued to align himself with the “Final Cause” school of the mid to late twentieth century, a position he outlined in his first major book and which he maintained until his death.