Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction

This book emphasizes problems in the philosophy of science over answers. It is specifically and effectively written as an introduction for beginning students. Thus, it proceeds mainly by identifying philosophical problems, thinking through potential answers, and then identifying problems with those potential answers. To other reviewers, this approach seems to have given the impression of unnecessary or unexpected digression, although I did not find the approach burdensome. Introductory education is as much about exposure to a range of issues and practice with ways of thinking as it is about specifying facts; the book balances these needs well. It provides the main persons and terms of which a philosopher of science should be able to speak, but it does so in the context of critical consideration rather than simple cataloging. I have to admit that I was a little surprised by how good the review questions were at the end of the chapters in prompting me to digest and articulate the ideas in the book, without seeming tedious or heavyhanded. The questions further emphasize critical thinking, often by requesting the reader to adopt different perspectives in approaching an issue. Many of the questions also make space for the student to bring into the discussion additional ideas not found in the book. The book succeeds in its goal of being an introduction to the field, but as a result of its specialization the book is not well suited for two related tasks often (and not without reason) expected of introductory books. First, it is not a handy desk reference, because it is neither properly structured nor sufficiently comprehensive for a reader to turn to a page and find a straightforward summary of any topic. Second, the book will not provide sufficient reading material for a semester-long university course, although it will provide the backbone to a course. The book approaches philosophy of science with a rather philosophical emphasis. Although early in the book Rosenberg notes a clear sense in which science requires philosophy, he has not written a book of answers to the kind of philosophical issues that typically pop up in the work of a research scientist. Indeed he occasionally notes that major issues discussed in the book are (seen as) irrelevant within the practice of research scientists. This is most true of the topic he pursues at greatest length: Kuhn's concept of scientific paradigms and the legacy of Kuhn's insight. While it might actually be extremely useful for researchers to consider the role of "normal science" in determining their research, Kuhn's legacy is mainly in the practically irrelevant idea that scientific research does not actually provide an increasingly close approximation of objective natural reality. This is a philosophically (and socio-historically) important issue, but scientists have no reason to attend to it (and every reason not to). Although I was amenable to this esoteric/non-applied philosophy approach,

The book arrived on time in good condtion. I appreciate the quality of the book and speedy delivery. Tnanks.

I do not have this book. I wish I did. I read the first six pages of the book which explains how various scientific disciplines have in the course of History broken off from Science, and come to constitute fields of learning of their own, and understood that this is a very clearly written and informative book. I am sure that it will lay out clearly the major questions raised today in the Philosophy of Science. As I understand it one major idea of the work is that there are philosophical questions that Science cannot answer . Or to put this in another way that Philosophy in a sense sets the limits of scientific inquiry. What strikes and troubles me in terms of the relationship of Philosophy and Science is that the latter produces in many cases testable conclusions, and thus has the authority of providing us ' truth'. And this when as far as I can tell or feel ' philosophical discourse ' is like discourse in the humanities, ' interpretative'. And it thus does not provide us with what is testable, objective, and ' communally held'. Of course I know that one of the questions of Philosophy of Science is whether there is such a 'thing' as ' objective truth'. But clearly in common sense terms, and in terms of the way most people think and act in the world of the mind ' scientific results' do have a quality in truth, that ' philosophical arguments ' do not. I am curious as to how this volume deals with these questions. I apologize for taking the reader's time. My sense is that this is a very good introduction to the whole subject.

I used this book in an introduction to philosophy of science course I took, along with an anthology of papers. The papers were hard to understand without this book. They were filled with a lot of jargon, and labels for different theories. This book helped me understand the labels, but it also got behind them to what the real issues between competing philosophies of science are, and how their arguments worked. It was not easy going but the effort to follow Rosenberg's presentation was worth it.

The great thing about this book, unlike most of the others, is that is shows how the problems of methodology and interpretation of scientific theories turn out to be the same deep problems philosophers have been wrestling with since the Greeks. It gives you all the definitions of the buzz-words in philosophy of science, but goes beyond them to tell you what's really up for grabs in debates about the nature of science, objectivity, explanation, and reality. And it ends with a great chapter on Kuhn and Quine.