Taking risks is an essential part in scientific research which can be seen for example in the scientists of scientific revolution. Scientific revolution was a period of time when taking risks led to breakthroughs and the scientists can be understood as gamblers. Nicolaus Copernicus crushed old thoughts of the church and Aristoteles, thus causing a contradiction between the teachings of the church and the Copernican hypothesis. Since the church had more power than Copernicus, Copernicus could have been slain because disagreeing with the church was seen as revolutionary and it could have made the people more secularised. In Copernicus's point of view, making science was more important than assuming old teachings correct. This kind of thinking was also against the popular way of thinking. Copernicus' brave ideas, however, can be seen as utterly extraordinary as he had studied a myriad …show more content…
His opinions in making scientific research were utmost incongruous with the earlier way of theorizing instead of making practical analyses. He tried to explain what happened, not just believing what might happen. Galileo's thoughts were closer to the secularised idea and thus not so supported. In spite of that, Galilei managed to proved Aristotelian physics wrong and thus destroyed the harmony between the church's thoughts and the Aristotelian physics. Despite the fact that Galileo was still in behalf of science, he wasn't brave enough to publish all of his analyses since he had seen the prohibition of Kepler's and Copernicus' books and the denouncing of the heliocentric worldview. Therefore he tried to be more moderate in publishing and even asked permission for researching. Nevertheless he went too far. Galileo was blamed for heresy and had rough times with the religious persecution. Based on these events, moderate risk-taking can also be as dangerous as severe