Case in Point - Early Physics by The Pendulum - Against Kuhn's Revolutions and Paradigms #2

Case in Point #2: Swinging stone in ancient Greece vs. pendulum in Renaissance Italy

Relating to Aristotle and Galileo by Kuhn and SSR, p. 118 - 125 and the difference of a swinging stone and the pendulum.

Aristotle: 384 BC - 322 BC, seeing a swinging stone, I guess, by chain or thread.
Galileo: 15 February 1564 - 8 January 1642, seeing the pendulum.
The difference between them: roughly 2000 yrs.

So, by Cumulativism, if we have 2000 years between 2 people and suppose a "revolution" as Galileo considers the pendulum I'd like people to think again because that's 2000 years of engineering history as well.

Let's list some factors for these 2000 years of engineering history:
* Measurements - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_measurement
* Accuracy and precision - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
* Technological ability to manipulate objects (i.e., tools and more) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance (for "simple machines")

So it proceeds from the factors above that a "revolution" hardly can be noted over the course of 2000 entire years and with the advance of the factors above.

Orderly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum.

For comparison, one can note that difference in weaponry as well, in telling a story of engineering:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_weapons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanelles_Gun

History of metalworking:
http://www.hackingtheuniverse.com/science/history-of-science-and-technology/genarticles/timeline-of-metalworking

Aristotle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
Galileo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

"Thus the press/media reports an ongoing revolution by transition from a swinging stone to a pendulum for 2000 years."

Future Cumulativism (ICT) accounts of history of science:

I'd like to speak out against "paranoia" about the pharmaceutical industry and the medicines.
Generally, for the history of science (and psychiatry), I find that the market is served, that there is real progress and so forth.
I agree that Big Pharma can be greedy, but that there has been and there is real progress in terms of medicines to the benefit of all patients even if science continues to be abused for the sake of evil, that is, the malpractice of (some) physicians and others.