Enlightenment philosophers and figures explicitly based a lot of their worldview around the imagined worldview of the Scientific Revolution — skepticism, transparency, pursuit of objectivity, freedom of communication, rationality, and so on. That these values may have had little to do in practice with their scientific heroes was not really of any consideration; the Enlightenment vision of Newton as the ultimate scientist involved ignoring a great deal about his actual life (his intense religiosity, his lack of publication, his alchemy, his vindictive vendettas).

One sees this impact in the appeals to rationalism in the French Revolution (and their embrace of certain scientific grand projects, like the creation of the metric system), and in the rhetoric of American Enlightenment figures (and "scientists") like Franklin and Jefferson. Voltaire wrote an entire book on Newton that was meant to establish him as the ultimate scientific mind, as one direct example. And of course there were other grand Enlightenment scientific projects, like Diderot and d'Alembert's Encyclopedie, which attempted to use the study of the natural world as a way to unify their ideas about philosophy and social order.

The very idea of a "Scientific Revolution" is something of an Enlightenment-era construct (though the specific term would not be coined until the 19th century, as far as I can tell), an idea that somehow people changed their practices dramatically and led to a worldview that was radically different from what had come before (that they, the stewards of the Enlightenment, now represented). It is of note that historians of science in general do not think this is a correct way to think about how science developed in the West.

Beyond this — I'm not sure how to reduce your question down further; it is very broad.