The idea that there was a "unique, revolutionary, epochal event" in the 17th century that created "modern science" is essentially 18th-19th century propaganda and has no historical basis. Most historians of science agree that there was no Scientific Revolution as such, but rather there were some very slow and gradual changes to how knowledge production occurred in Western Europe in the 16th-18th centuries, followed by a radical professionalization in the 19th century, and this is what we call "modern science." Many of the changes that did happen (increased use of quantification; heightened search for "natural laws"; increased reliance on instruments to generate new observational knowledge; broader and more open correspondence and publication networks; among others) have their antecedents that go back far earlier, and span across many cultures, as well.

This doesn't mean that we can't talk about developments in 17th-century scientific practice as being significant and important. Historians of science do. But the idea that suddenly modern science sort of just popped up out of nowhere, and totally changed everything as a result, just isn't true. The development was much longer, less unique than is usually supposed, and was not as revolutionary as people tend to believe.

Why would you think the contrary? Because the story that "before there was science, everyone was stuck in a dogmatic dark age, and then a bunch of brilliant European pioneers figured out how to know things for the first time, and POW, we entered the modern world" was a compelling one to (actual) revolutionaries in the 18th century (who were advocating for all kinds of revolutions, including political ones), and became a very compelling story to people in the 19th century who wanted to establish science as a competing form of political, moral, and epistemic authority to traditional forms of politics and religion. (There are modern-day variants of these people, as well, like Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson). One can think what one wants about these efforts, but their history is bad.

For a very concise description of why historians of science don't like the term "Scientific Revolution" that much, see Steven Shapin's The Scientific Revolution (which famously opens with the line: "There was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution, and this is a book about it"). For a competing view (which says that we can talk about some of these changes — like quantification — as important shifts), see e.g. Peter Dear's Discipline and Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution. But even Dear would agree that it wasn't the sort of overnight (or even "unique") thing that the proselytizers have it. Scientific practice in the 19th century looks very different than scientific practice in, say, the 15th or 16th century. But so also do the practices of art, politics, economics, what have you, and we don't tend to ascribe those changes to a single revolutionary moment.

Again, we can talk about the changes that lead to what we consider to be modern science. They aren't all in the period that people consider the "Scientific Revolution" (some predate it, some postdate it considerably — my students are always kind of surprised that science continues to look distinctly "unmodern" until the late 19th century, when suddenly it starts to look very familiar), and they aren't practiced universally by even the "heroes" of said "Revolution." But there are shifts that are important in this period. Historians of science don't generally find it useful to lump them all under one heading ("Scientific Revolution") and have a strong disdain for the foolish things that scientists ignorant of history in particular say about this period.

(And the "every word is wrong" bit is a reference to something Luke Skywalker says in Star Wars, Episode 8. I wouldn't take it literally.)