I would not agree with your premises. While historians do use the term 'Scientific Revolution' for the period you describe, no-one denies that there was science before that in the sense of rational analysis of natural phenomena. They didn't always get correct answers.

Science has been around for a lot longer than 400 years if that's what you're thinking. People have always been naturally curious about how things came about, why certain things take place, etc. they were indeed quite curious. I mean, just even taking out my chemistry textbook here, it even mentions Democritus speaking of atoms.

In the Western tradition, the fount, if you like, of both philosophy and science is Thales of Miletus in Asia Minor (the first person we can identify). Thales wasn't exactly a scientist according to modern criteria; for one thing, he didn't possess the kind of scientific equipment that would allow him to test hypotheses.

Thales was what is known as a natural philosopher; a philosopher of the natural world. He is perhaps most famous for accurately predicting an eclipse, and was very important in the development of Greek astronomy. Thales was interested in physics (from the Greek physis - nature), and especially in identifying the underlying matter of the universe, and he is the first in a long line of natural philosophers.

Later natural philosophers include people like Leucippus and Democritus, who proposed atoms (from a Greek word essentially meaning "uncuttable") as the underlying matter from which all things are made. These weren't modern atoms (which have been split, so are definitely not the same as the ancient Greek concept), but it was a very impressive idea and, I believe, the inspiration for scientists who proposed and discovered modern atoms. The most comprehensive surviving source on this ancient idea is Lucretius's poem De rerum natura - On the Nature of the Universe.

Essentially, 'scientists' of the ancient world are called philosophers or natural philosophers.