I would argue that the scientific method wasn't very revolutionary during the scientific revolution seeing as it existed for hundreds of years. i think it was one of the ancient Greek or roman philosophers that first developed a series of thought that closely resembles the scientific method we know today. however another interpretation of the question is in the definition of revolution. the scientific revolution wasn't bloody like the British/french/american revolution. however the " dictionary definition" of revolution is completing an orbit. in that sense you could consider the scientific revolution a misnomer. in conclusion i think that the ways in which the scientific revolution differed from other revolts are numerous.
Answer:
Ida Tarbell was an American journalist best known for her pioneering investigative reporting that led to the breakup of the Standard Oil Company's monopoly. So the answer is A :) Hope this Helps
Explanation:
it makes sense that to control the minds of a mass populist it would be nescessary to slowly desensitize them by introducing bits than over time increase the magnitude of exposure
Explanation:
its like the frog in the pot of boiling water thing: if you put a frog into a pot of cold water than put the pot on to a hot stove, the frog will not jump out if the pot as it does not notice or feel that it is getting hotter (because it is cold blooded, naturally) it will sit until the water bowls and kills it and us none the wiser. however if you simply put a frog into an already boiling pot of water, it will immediately sense the dangerous change in temp and jump out if the pot in an attempt to save it's own life.
They were still called architects. Freemason is a secret society.
