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:
It can affect your career choice by giving you fear you may never live up to expectations, and it can affect your well-being
Explanation:
Answer:
Monke idek lol happy late New Years have a great day!
Explanation:
The conditions were usually of natural causes. For example, since homesteaders relied on self-sufficiency and were mostly agricultural throughout history, a homesteader might suffer immeasurably if a drought hit and destroyed all their crops since it was their only source of income. Sometimes however in the United States they could also get raided by bandits or Native Americans since they would be usually settling in new areas towards the western frontier.
They relied on some technological advancements to survive. For example, they used barbed wires and weaponry to fend off unwanted animals or people who would try to harm them. They would also use things like the steel plow to help ensure that their land was better suited for crops. Some also relied on windmills both for power and for things like grinding grains.<span />
