BOOKS to read
BOOKS to read
Has anybody read either of these?
1. The unconscious quantum : metaphysics in modern physics and cosmology by Victor Stenger
2. Nothingness : the science of empty space by Henning Genz
I just ordered them from the library. Philosophy of science is an area of which I am completely ignorant.
1. The unconscious quantum : metaphysics in modern physics and cosmology by Victor Stenger
2. Nothingness : the science of empty space by Henning Genz
I just ordered them from the library. Philosophy of science is an area of which I am completely ignorant.
Hi RachelAnn,
These look more like popular science rather than philosophy of science. I'm sure they are interesting books but I don't think they are a good place to start learning about the philosophy of science. Popular science books tend to be rather suspicious of philosophy of science as discipline, yet at the same time they are full of rather naive philosophical claims. One need only think of the likes of Hawking and Dawkins, great scientists and writers to be sure, but not good philosophers.
These look more like popular science rather than philosophy of science. I'm sure they are interesting books but I don't think they are a good place to start learning about the philosophy of science. Popular science books tend to be rather suspicious of philosophy of science as discipline, yet at the same time they are full of rather naive philosophical claims. One need only think of the likes of Hawking and Dawkins, great scientists and writers to be sure, but not good philosophers.
- bullwinkle
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:05 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html
Check out these podcasts. Lots of great philosophers, sociologists and historians of science here.
I agree with Bullwinkle about starting with Kuhn. It's why I got into philosophy of science. Polanyi also good but much longer book than Kuhn's, also less important in the history of philosophy of science.
Check out these podcasts. Lots of great philosophers, sociologists and historians of science here.
I agree with Bullwinkle about starting with Kuhn. It's why I got into philosophy of science. Polanyi also good but much longer book than Kuhn's, also less important in the history of philosophy of science.
- bullwinkle
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:05 pm
Rortabend, I think that your statement is correct. Polanyi seems to have been rather overlooked; I find his epistemology to be the most convincing that I have read. Do you have a view on why his philosophy has not been that important to science? My own view is that what he says is too uncomfortable for most scientists.Rortabend wrote:I agree with Bullwinkle about starting with Kuhn. It's why I got into philosophy of science. Polanyi also good but much longer book than Kuhn's, also less important in the history of philosophy of science.
Do you have any other book recommendations for philosophy of science?
Thanks,
Bullwinkle
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Hi RA,
If memory serves right then a good intro was once, What is This Thing Called Science? A.F. Chalmers. Moving on and to balance Kuhn, Karl Poppers "Conjectures & Refutations", a major work in Phil of Science due to his concept of falsification as the primary result of the scientific method. Advanced, Paul Feyerabend's Against Method(but I think its worth reading the intro(preface?) and noting that this book was meant to be one half of a duet with Imre Lakatos who died before he could write it).
I also think that an invaluable general backgrounder for this type of Philosophy is John Hospers An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis.
a_uk
If memory serves right then a good intro was once, What is This Thing Called Science? A.F. Chalmers. Moving on and to balance Kuhn, Karl Poppers "Conjectures & Refutations", a major work in Phil of Science due to his concept of falsification as the primary result of the scientific method. Advanced, Paul Feyerabend's Against Method(but I think its worth reading the intro(preface?) and noting that this book was meant to be one half of a duet with Imre Lakatos who died before he could write it).
I also think that an invaluable general backgrounder for this type of Philosophy is John Hospers An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis.
a_uk
I don't know enough about Polanyi to answer your question. However, I would say you are on the right track when you say that what he says is too uncomfortable for scientists. Most scientists ignore philosophy of science with the notable exception of Popper.Rortabend, I think that your statement is correct. Polanyi seems to have been rather overlooked; I find his epistemology to be the most convincing that I have read. Do you have a view on why his philosophy has not been that important to science? My own view is that what he says is too uncomfortable for most scientists.
Depends what you are interested in. If you are interested in learning more about why Kuhn was so influential (and perhaps why Polanyi was not) I would recommend Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for our Times by Steve Fuller.Do you have any other book recommendations for philosophy of science?
- bullwinkle
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:05 pm
Thanks.Rortabend wrote:Depends what you are interested in. If you are interested in learning more about why Kuhn was so influential (and perhaps why Polanyi was not) I would recommend Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for our Times by Steve Fuller.
I read Chalmers, the first half is quite good but it peters out after that and becomes quite superficial. It does give a reasonable account of falsification. I started Conjectures & Refutations earlier in the year but only read half of it as it seemed like the same idea re-hashed over and over again and it got less convincing the more I read.Arising_uk wrote:If memory serves right then a good intro was once, What is This Thing Called Science? A.F. Chalmers. Moving on and to balance Kuhn, Karl Poppers "Conjectures & Refutations", a major work in Phil of Science due to his concept of falsification as the primary result of the scientific method.
Bullwinkle
Couldn't agree with you more bullwinkle. Popper does this a lot. He had one really clever idea and flogged it to death. Mind I suppose this did get him noticed by the scientific community!I started Conjectures & Refutations earlier in the year but only read half of it as it seemed like the same idea re-hashed over and over again and it got less convincing the more I read.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am