I am currently studying for the first revolutions test of the year and I can assume that many others are, so this will be a relatively brief post, however, I hope that it’s length (or lack thereof) does not detract from the point of this post. As I study I keep coming across the same terms appearing in the same context: elite, upperclass, nobility and wealthy. All of these terms refer to the people who played an influential role in the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. Not once does the textbook mention a non-elite figure or even group of people holding an even semi-important role in this monumental change of worldview. Instead, the textbook reads, the philosophes “believe the the masses had no time or talent for philosophical speculation and that elevating them would be a long, slow, potentially dangerous process.” (607) So to cut to the chase, the hypothetical question which I am pondering – and would like to hear others’ views on – is: would the ultimate result of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment have been different if the “common people” played a significant role it/could the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment have even occurred if the commoners were included in it?