Soru

For generations, the historiography of the Scientific Revolution has been dominated by a "demarcationist" paradigm. This framework posits a sudden, definitive rupture in the seventeenth century, wherein the rigorous, quantifiable methods of modern science decisively vanquished the esoteric and mystical traditions of the Renaissance. According to this narrative, figures such as Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton were champions of pure rationality who discarded the speculative baggage of alchemy and hermeticism. The demarcationist approach, popularized by nineteenth-century scholars eager to establish science as a distinct and unassailable profession, offers a linear narrative of intellectual progress.

However, recent archival scholarship has rendered this neat bifurcation increasingly untenable. A closer examination of primary sources reveals that the architects of the Scientific Revolution were deeply, and unashamedly, immersed in the very esoteric traditions the demarcationist paradigm insists they repudiated. Newton, for example, devoted considerably more time and ink to alchemical experimentation than to the formulation of his laws of motion, viewing his chemical investigations not as a distinct enterprise, but as deeply intertwined with his pursuit of natural philosophy.

Despite an overwhelming influx of such evidence, certain contemporary historians cling to the demarcationist framework. They attempt to explain away the esoteric pursuits of these scientific luminaries as mere idiosyncratic hobbies, temporary lapses in judgment, or unavoidable products of their era's linguistic limitations. This defensive posture is understandable, given how deeply the demarcationist narrative is embedded in institutional science education. Conceding that the foundations of modern rationality were partly built on mystical traditions threatens the boundary-work that modern scientific disciplines use to maintain their epistemic authority.

Yet, to dismiss the alchemical commitments of seventeenth-century thinkers as irrelevant anomalies is to commit a profound anachronism. It forces historical actors into modern categories they would not have recognized. By artificially severing the "rational" from the "mystical," the demarcationist historians do not merely oversimplify the past; they actively distort the intellectual processes that actually generated early modern science. A historically accurate account must embrace the messy, hybrid nature of seventeenth-century natural philosophy. To persist in applying the sterile demarcationist filter is to prioritize a comforting modern mythology over the complex, historical reality of scientific discovery.

Which of the following phrases best describes the author's attitude toward the contemporary historians who attempt to explain away the esoteric pursuits of early modern scientists?