Philosophy of Natural Science

Carl Hempel's "Philosophy of Natural Science" is an introduction to the philosophy of science by one of the twentieth century's finest philosophers of science. This book is one of the best in the popular "Foundations of Philosophy Series", and a classic in the philosophy of science. The book is slim but quite comprehensive. It covers the structure of scientific hypotheses and their justification, the role of laws in scientific explanations, and the nature of scientific concepts and theoretical reduction, among many other topics. Hempel is an excellent guide to a very difficult subject. He writes lucidly and argues carefully. Many of his claims are illustrated with examples from the history of science. The book also includes suggestions for further reading. Some familiarity with analytic philosophy and the history of science will be helpful for readers of this book. But I don't think that this background is required. While those without this background may find some sections of this book difficult, I think that they'll understand a lot. This book was published in 1966. Therefore, it does not cover some of the latest work in the philosophy of science. Needless to say, as a work of analytic philosophy, many of its claims are controversial. Nevertheless, it remains an excellent introduction to the philosophy of science. For more recent, and sometimes easier, introductions to the philosophy of science, with some different coverage, I recommend Chalmer's "What Is This Thing Called Science?" or Hung's "The Nature of Science: Problems and Perspectives", though I have more gripes with these books than with Hempel's. I recommend these books not in place of Hempel's but in addition to it.

PHILOSOPHY OF NATURAL SCIENCE, by Carl G. Hempel is a classic exposition of the scientific method and should be considered required reading for all scientists as well as informed lay persons. Do not let the title of this book mislead you, among its most ardent supporters are the practitioners of the social sciences in addition to the expected audience of "hard" scientists (Though PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE is another volume in this "Foundations of Philosophy" series, it is nowhere near the classic that this volume is). Far from just a theoretical work, Hempel skillfully injects easily understandable case studies and examples into his writing. Proceeding from the basic logical construction of the scientific method to more complex ideas challenging some of the classically held views, Hempel is always accessible, always clearly understandable. This is a surprisingly enjoyable book to read and short enough that it shouldn't intimidate anyone. There are far too few people today who understand scientific explanation and I would recommend this indispensable book for anyone's library. Jeremy W. Forstadt

Hempel's little book _Philosophy of Natural Science_ is a concise, lucid introduction to a complex subject. In just over a hundred pages, he discusses a wide range of problems in the philosophy of science, with an emphasis on epistemological issues. Like other books in the "Foundations of Philosophy" series (and like other good philosophy texts in general), the book not only discusses the positions of other philosophers, it also makes a case for the author's own point of view. Chapter 5, where he lays out his deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation, is worth the cover price alone. Hempel is a clear writer, and he illustrates his points with many examples from the history of science. These are both illuminating and interesting in their own right. This book is a great place to start to learn about the history and philosophy of science.

Is anyone here has the book of e-version?I need it very much,would any one sent it to me,please!

This is a somewhat personal note, as well as a commentary on this book: I am theoretical physicist who really had his eyes opened by this brief but thorough text. Hemple enumerates and discusses the classic measures of what makes an acceptable scientific theory. Simplicity, explanatory power, and so forth. As I read each chapter, it became clear to me that there were deep logical problems with each way of judging theories, and thus with the whole enterprise. Hence not only is this a good review of the nature and process of science, but it serves as introduction to more recent philosophies, in which the fundamental logical foundation of science is re-examined. That is, it showed me why there is logically room for other views of the nature of science, since there were such deep difficulties with the classic view (by the way, this classic view is still held, unexamined, by most engineers and many scientists).