Any good texts out that there thay suffice for “Dummies guide to Philosophy of Science” -type book?
Thanks!
Generally, and unfortunately, “philosophy of science” is really just “philosophy of physics”. I can recommend works by Ernst Mayr that address philosophy of life sciences, but they would generally fly in the face in opposition against much of what is dogmatically accepted in much “philosophy of science”.
Perhaps “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” by Carl Sagan, or “Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” by Thomas Kuhn. And maybe “Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time” (more of a philosophy of anti-science, but you should be able to infer from that the philosophy of science).
For some time now the standardish introduction to the classic debates has been Alan Chambers’ What is this thing called Science? (numerous editions). It’s aimed at undergraduates, so it’s not quite a “Dummies Guide”, and it’s getting dated, but it’s a well regarded and useful overview of Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, etc.
At a slightly lower level, Steve Fuller’s new Kuhn vs. Popper seems to be pitching at what you’re looking for, though I haven’t read it.
Both Sagan and Shermer’s books are on skepticism. More specifically, why it is important and should be adopted. Kuhn’s book is on history of science, what with all the “paradigm shifts” business.
Relegating Kuhn to “history of science” is a convenient cop-out. He presents a philosophy of science in the context of a historical narrative. Nevertheless, his point is not to say “what happened then” but to present philosophy of how science works here and now. He cites historical events as evidence to corroborate his philosophy.
Kuhn’s greatest weakness is that it is impossible. He presents science at any era as a closed system, ruled by a Kuhnian paradigm that does not permit dissent nor even permit questions to be framed that would lead to dissent. Then he introduces paradigm shifts that are impossible if paradigms really are as strong as he claims they are.
I recommend the following books:
The Growth of Biological Thought
Toward A New Philosophy of Biology
both by Earns Mayr. It’s a different perspective from the Popperian/Kuhnian squabbling that dominates much of the field of “philosophy of science” these days, and it addresses things from the perspective of the life sciences (where variation in measurements often reflects the reality that a population’s members actually are different from each other) rather than the physical sciences (where variation in measurement is attributed to “error” in measuring members of a population that are presumed to be all essentially identical).
Yes, they are on scepticism, but one can hardly read them without getting a heavy dose of the philosophy of science-as-it-should-be-done, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Of course, one can make a very convincing argument that skepticism is the philosophy of science.
Or skeptical curiosity. Which makes me want to recommend Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynmann! – a book about the philosophy of a scientist. One of the greatest scientists, with a childlike curiosity about the world, mixed with a healthy dose of incredulity.
I’m not sure what you are really looking for, and judging by the other posts, neither are others.
Philosophy of science, as it is commonly understood, refers to the canon of Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend and their ilk. The posters who are saying that it concentrates on physics are only partially right; it would confuse the issue to go into that here.
If you just want a very brief understanding of what they were saying, see the last line of this post. If need by, I guess several posters could fill you in on the outlines.
With ‘dummies’ books, people mostly mean a bit of a read but not very much, and in an easily digestible style. Unfortunately I do not know of a general ‘Dummies’ or ‘Beginners’ series of books for this subject. I checked the ‘*** in 90 minutes’ and the ‘*** for Beginners’ series, which are generally quite good.
If you just mean an introduction to philosophy of science, and you are not afraid to put some effort in it, there are tons of books that are used by undergraduates. You could check out the literature list of any university course on philosophy of science. In my studies we mainly used Dutch books which are no use to you, I guess, but I also read
Ian Hacking, Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science, Cambridge 1983.
Hacking is a renowned philosopher in the field, has a very readible style, and intersperses the book with lots of examples from various sciences. His discussion is very complete. The book is 277 pages.
If you want a very short introduction, you could just read the first 17 pages (the introduction), where he presents the positions of Popper and Kuhn and Lakatos with a few examples. (you could also read an encyclopedia for entries on those philosophers, but that is less fun)
Religions have a canon. Skeptical philosophies do not. The canonical treatment of the aforementioned authors is in part why life scientists are building our own philosophy.