I can see how the architects and scientists were eager to embrace the ideas of the Scientific Revolution. Part of this resided in the idea that science and rationality would guide how individuals functioned and how vocations would be guided. No longer would there be an nonspecific and vague notion of consciouness. Rather, it would be the ideas of science and rational thought, with tested out hypotheses, as well as projections based on reasonable assumptions that defined one's state of being in the world. For architects, this meant that success could be replicated in different forms, so long as the successful principles in operation were evident. For scientists, their mode of appropriating the world would be the foundation for all others. Where I end up finding a bit of divergence with the question would be the issue of the artists. I think that part of my bias here is that the Romantic thinkers did such a number on making art a subjective experience, and the artist a voice of this subjective consciousness, that I could not see how the artists would be willing to embrace tha ideas and ideals of the scientific revolution. It seems to me that the artists might not be so inclined to the embracing of the scientific revolution because its principles would be applied to art, as well, decreasing the value of the subjective in the face of the objective.