The history of science, such comoAlexandre Koyr 1 nosnarrou, serves exemplarily well not to characterize amodernidade equivocadamente as the time that definitively breached with the tradition; cinciamesma, arqutipo of the modern conscience and behavior, guardaorigens typically ancestral, without which never it would have fond of the level of abstraction porela obtained and with which it one felt the will and it bragged on itself same mythical last diantedo and its representations on the nature, on the other hand e, deoutro, of the proper nature, that to that height of its proper pride, to supunhapoder entirely to dominate. Yes, modern science is more that ofruto sudden of an overwhelming revolution. It is more the continuation potentee catalyzed of slow, gradual cultural processes, of what the irruption deuma brusque pause in historical devir that she would signal a new start. Amodernidade, therefore, must today be appreciated not as a moment of the rupture, mascomo the moment of the top, the apex and the achievement of complex processes that htempos sketched its first developments. Science, optimum arqutipoque represents everything that if wants modern, is optimum example that we have to paraprovar that modernity, as everything that is historical, did not start yesterday. Elaprova, by the way, something more and greater. In the domain of history he is ambiguous, improfcuo eproblemtico to point any start, any point in the multiple line of tempoonde the past absolutely is forgotten on behalf of the radical newness dofuturo. But it has transistions, more or less flowed, more or less perceptveiscomo such.
What it is seen and interpreted as ' ' novo' ' in relation to the past, it cannot be without a value judgment, would say Weber. The scientific, enemy rationalism irreconcilable of the religious rationalism, is more its continuation doque its logical opposition. Let us advance: Weber does not face amodernidade as the time of the rupture with the tradition.