Why did scientists reject Natural History as a scientific authority by the end of the 17th century?

By the end of the 17th century, scientists rejected the Natural History as a scientific authority because it failed to meet the rigorous standards of the emerging scientific method.12

While Pliny the Elder’s work served as a primary source of scientific information for centuries, it was increasingly viewed as unreliable due to several factors:

• Lack of Empirical Rigor: Pliny did not distinguish between fact, opinion, and speculation. His work contained numerous unsupported claims, fables, and superstitions, which were increasingly incompatible with the new emphasis on empirical observation and reproducibility.12
• Shift in Methodology: The scientific revolution prioritized systematic observation, critical confirmation, and the mechanical analysis of phenomena. As scientists began to demand evidence that could be tested and verified, Pliny’s uncritical compilation of ancient sources became obsolete.123
• Historical Criticism: The decline of the work's authority began as early as 1492 with Niccolò Leoniceno’s tract on the errors of Pliny. Over the following two centuries, as more scholars scrutinized his statements, the Natural History was gradually superseded by works based on direct, experimental investigation.12