Science During the Age of Enlightenment

The 17th and 18th centuries were a time of profound transformation in Europe in regards to thought, reason, skepticism, and empirical observation. This was nowhere more pronounced than during the Age of Enlightenment, its intellectual and philosophical movements leading to modern democracy, with the ideas ushered in during this time forever changing the scope of Western science. 

The thinkers of the Enlightenment were inspired to question beyond the limits of scientific reasoning at that time and change human understanding. During the early 17th century, European intellectual reasoning consisted of religious dogma and Aristotelian philosophy, with it being unthinkable to challenge the medieval church’s idea of a divine and static universe that centered around Earth. Therefore, the ensuing Scientific Revolution during this time revolutionized the way that Europeans thought about the world and set a new standard for deductive reasoning and scientific observation. 

Science at this time was conducted predominantly by scientific societies and academies rather than universities, and while some societies had links to universities, most societies operated on their own. These societies grew to have control over their publications, the election of new members, and the administration of the organization, with there being over 70 different scientific societies by 1789. Additionally, science during this time became more popular among the increasingly literate populace and the public was introduced to various scientific ideas. 

One thinker who was thought to establish the foundations for the movement was Francis Bacon, who is known for establishing empiricism and the scientific method. His book, Novum Organum, discussed a new approach to gathering knowledge from systematic experimentation, inductive reasoning, and empirical observation. He also wrote about the idea of testing hypotheses through experimentation as a way to pursue scientific inquiry. He was the first advocate for the idea of separating religion from science, and his impact on the science world remains today as the scientific method is still seen as the standard way to approach discoveries. 

The most pivotal scientific thinker of that age whose legacy remains today is Sir Isaac Newton. His Principia Mathematica described classical mechanics and presented the laws of motion and universal gravitation through mathematical observation and analysis. His law of universal gravitation and the laws of objects in motion changed the way that people practiced science and indicated the need for empirical observation and evidence behind scientific ideas rather than religion. Through this, Newton was able to demonstrate how the same physical laws govern both terrestrial and celestial environments, challenging the ideas of the universe at that time. These insights would also eventually lead to advancements in the fields of physics, astronomy, and engineering.

Another scientist during this time was Carl Linnaeus, a botanist and physician. His book, Systema Naturae, established the binomial nomenclature for species classification where each species is assigned a two part Latin name for its genus and species. Linnaeus ordered animals and plants into defined groups, such as domains and phyla, and used the scientific ideas of observation and rational analysis to study various evolutionary relationships and biodiversity. His work shaped people’s understanding of nature and created a framework for how botany, zoology, and ecology is studied. 

Overall, the Age of Enlightenment was an integral part of scientific and intellectual history and changed the way that Europe viewed reason, individualism, and progress. While the Enlightenment might not have explored all modern thought, the scholars, scientists, and thinkers of this time sought to break free from the limited knowledge of their world and seek new truth and ideas. Today, we can reflect on the science from the Enlightenment to continue to make bold scientific discoveries and create our impact on the world. 

 

Sources:

 

Bristow, W. (2010, August 20). Enlightenment (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu; Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/

Duignan, B. (2024, March 28). Enlightenment. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Enlightenment-European-history 

Zucker, S., & Harris, B. (2016, January 7). The Age of Enlightenment, an introduction. Smarthistory. https://smarthistory.org/a-beginners-guide-to-the-age-of-enlightenment/ 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.