You are on page 1of 3

Kaytlin Dumler

WHH 2
April 17th 2015
Journals
Grading Period 2
What is the relationship between the attitudes on science &
politics in the 17th & 18th centuries?
Scientists made remarkable theories and did prove them right,
including Galileo Galilei, Sir Francis Bacon, and Issac Newton.
They had proved things that are against the power of the church,
which angered people of the time. The church was scared about
losing power because of this and the scientists had proof for what
they had discovered. The moon phases were an example of this.
Issac Newton created the scientific method that is stilled used
today in all of the sciences. Even children are taught in in early
school years and its importance.
Should goals of revolutionary movements be included in the
outcomes they produce?
I think yes. If there is a certain goal for something, it should be
mentioned regardless of the outcome. If someone was working for
something and it didnt work out, it should still be included in the
outcome because it is still a topic someone is working with and
could be important. Some of the people back then were probably
not thinking about how it would change the world for years and
years to come.

Why did Europe seem to lead the world into the Industrial
Revolution?
Europe was a leading country in industrializing. It was a very large
country and it continued to grow for another period of time. It was
one of the most/more advanced nations in technology and kept
coming out with new ideas. Many enlightenment thinkers were
from or in Europe in that time period also.
Should nations manipulate relationships with other nations for
their own benefit?
I do not think so. If nations are continuously manipulating other
nations for their benefit, there could be a lot of trouble in the
future. Arguments, boycotting goods could occur and possibly
even a war or wars. I think nations should be honest and good,
even if it may hurt them a little. Maybe nations could ask other
nations for help in difficult times, but manipulating just seems like
a bad idea to me.
Should cultures look for ways to enhance or restrict blending as
cultural interactions increase?
I think yes and no. if a culture wants to grow and develop into a
more complex, blended system, then I dont see why not allowing
other people to have opinions and allow the culture to evolve. If a
group of people want to be stricter about their ways and
traditions they should be the ones to make the decision.
Why have populations of various make up w/ diverse issues turn
to revolution as a solution?
Some populations need a fast drastic change that will change the
nation to a great extent. If there are many issues that need to be

dealt with individually, it would be easier for one big revolution to


solve them all at once while trying to minimize errors.