1.

The Copernican Revolution was the paradigm shift from the

Ptolemaic model of the heavens, which described the cosmos as having Earth
stationa ry at the center of the universe, to the heliocentric model with the Sun at the center of the Solar System.

Beginning with the publicatio n of Nicolaus Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, contribut ions to the

“revolution” continued until fi nally ending with Isaac Newto n’s work over a century later.

Reviewer Francis G. Townsend described it as a "scholarly book, well organized and well written, interesting to the intelligent reader
whatever his special field".[5] Historian Charles F. Mullett also described the book as scholarly but noted that the book contains a
"slough of misrepresentation". Himmelfarb insisted to her readers that the theory of natural selection is on shaky ground, but Mullett
pointed out that the theory is supported by "numerous experiments and observations [that] have established it most securely".[6]

2.Darwinian Revolution Historian Charles Coulston Gillispie wrote that, although the book contains well researched history on
Darwin, it is a book that is hostile to science. According to Gillispie, "her scientific discussion of the status of the theory of natural
selection is simply incorrect".[3]

Anthropologist Neil Tappen has written:

Himmelfarb makes her greatest effort in discussing Darwin's theory of natural selection and arguing against its validity. Here she is
at her very worst; her lack of thorough grounding in modern biology becomes painfully evident. She is not aware of the vast weight
of genetic evidence against Lamarckian and vitalist doctrines. She claims that there has been no evidence of natural selection in
operation. It has been observed through time in numerous organisms, whereas there is an excellent record for several forms,
including man... Her ventures into physical anthropology are no less disastrous.[4]

Biologist Ernst Mayr described the book as displaying an "abyss of ignorance and misunderstanding".[7] PZ Myers has criticized the
book for utilizing discredited arguments against natural selection, similar to those of creationists.

3.Freud's revolution may be viewed as the discovery of a way of locating in the mind objective entities which can be studied like
physical things. If Freud's is representative of scientific revolutions, perhaps what Thomas Kuhn has described as a change of
paradigm might generally consist of the demonstration of new entities. This particular revolution occurred in the setting of a
prevalent concern about the entities underlying all of the sciences. Because of his genius for structural thought, Freud was able to
respond satisfactorily to a challenge that all the sciences were facing. It is that common challenge rather than a popular exemplary
model, such as mechanics or hydraulics, that shaped Freud's theory.