As a boy, I loved reading about science and technology and became a physicist. To my surprise, I found myself increasingly drawn to studying the history of science and philosophy of science, which attempts to understand how and why science “works.” I resigned from my job as a physicist and devoted myself to full-time graduate study in this field, enjoying every moment of it. I began a forty-nine-year academic career—the last thirty-nine at Lehigh University—teaching courses of my own design in the history and philosophy of science and also in how science, technology, and society mutually influence one another. I can honestly say that I remain excited even now about attempting to understand how scientific knowledge impacts society.
I wrote...
Science Wars: The Battle over Knowledge and Reality
I have read and re-read this book several times, each time with enjoyment. The author tells a fascinating story about the discovery, interpretation, and re-interpretation of ancient human fossils, and I think he tells it in a way that draws people in.
I am most impressed by his ability to show the reader the role that assumptions and prejudices play in scientific discovery and theorizing without preaching. This book opens a window for the general reader onto how science really works.
This is a behind-the-scenes look at the search for human origins, analyzing how the biases and preconceptions of paleoanthropologists shape their work. The stories of the Taung Child and Neanderthal Man provide the background to the modern search for an exploration of how and where humans evolved. In this edition, the afterword looks at ways in which paleoanthropology, while becoming more scientific, in many ways remains contentious. It is Lewin's thesis that paleoanthropology is the most subjective of sciences because it engages the emotions of virtually everyone; and since the evidence is scanty, interpretation is all-important.
This book, which went viral in the 1960s just when I was looking for an academic position as a philosopher of science, saved me professionally. Kuhn’s book upended the prevailing view, which I opposed, that the key to understanding how science works is exposing the logic of scientific reasoning.
His book makes a compelling case that the history of science decisively undermines the prevailing view. I admire how Kuhn here uses the history of science—from Galileo and Newton to Einstein and quantum theory—to expose the role that unproven assumptions play in formulating scientific theories and to show that it is changing assumptions that are the primary driver of theory change. I also admire the clarity of his writing.
A good book may have the power to change the way we see the world, but a great book actually becomes part of our daily consciousness, pervading our thinking to the point that we take it for granted, and we forget how provocative and challenging its ideas once were-and still are. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is that kind of book. When it was first published in 1962, it was a landmark event in the history and philosophy of science. And fifty years later, it still has many lessons to teach. With "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Kuhn challenged long-standing…
I really like this book and I regularly use it as a textbook in my Introduction to the Philosophy of Science course.
What I like is the way that Losee uses very short case studies in the history of science to refute the popular view that, through experimentation and observation, nature decides between competing theories and provides the justification for replacing an older theory with a new one. Although Losee does not always agree with Kuhn, I find that his book beautifully complements the history-based argument in Kuhn’s book, and both are short!
In a recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Cullen Murphy wrote that "It is always a little disconcerting when audacious scientific theories come a cropper." In this case, he was speaking of Stephen Hawking's now self-repudiated idea that information swallowed by cosmic black holes might be escaping into "baby universes." John Losee looks at the subject of rejected scientific theories through an analysis of case studies from more than two centuries of science. Losee excerpts the work of prominent scientists and philosophers of science accompanied by evaluative comments from the fields of science and philosophy. He sets these discussions within…
I love reading books on the history of science in its social and cultural context if they are well-written and the author is truly knowledgeable. In my opinion, no one alive does this better than Stephen Gaukroger. This first of the four volumes Gaukroger has written on this subject covers the Medieval and Renaissance run-up to modern science and is my favorite, though the other three are equally excellent.
I like how Gaukroger traces the emergence of modern science from the philosophical ideas of St. Augustine through the creation of the universities and Renaissance magical philosophy to the creation of a materialistic, mathematics—and experiment-based science of nature. I cannot fault either the writing or the scholarship.
Why did science emerge in the West and how did scientific values come to be regarded as the yardstick for all other forms of knowledge? Stephen Gaukroger shows just how bitterly the cognitive and cultural standing of science was contested in its early development. Rejecting the traditional picture of secularization, he argues that science in the seventeenth century emerged not in opposition to religion but rather was in many respects driven by it. Moreover, science did not present a unified picture of nature but was an unstable field of different, often locally successful but just as often incompatible, programmes. To…
I especially love reading historically important scientific works themselves. Reading them, you participate in the thinking of a great scientist and get a feeling for the thinker. Many of these are accessible to the general reader, among them this book, an important contribution to the creation of modern science.
It so angered the Pope that he turned Galileo over to the Roman Inquisition, who found him guilty of heresy for not-so-subtly arguing the truth of Copernicus’ theory that the Earth is not motionless at the center of the universe, as was then believed and defended by the Church but moves around the Sun just like all the other planets. In exchange for publicly recanting this view, he was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life.
Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in Florence in 1632, was the most proximate cause of his being brought to trial before the Inquisition. Using the dialogue form, a genre common in classical philosophical works, Galileo masterfully demonstrates the truth of the Copernican system over the Ptolemaic one, proving, for the first time, that the earth revolves around the sun. Its influence is incalculable. The Dialogue is not only one of the most important scientific treatises ever written, but a work of supreme clarity and accessibility, remaining as readable now as when it was first published. This…
I trace a conflict within science from its seventeenth-century beginnings to the present day over what science gives us knowledge of, an account of a reality “out there” independent of the human mind or interpretations of our experience of that reality. Which one of these science gives us is not merely of intellectual interest; it has profound implications for public policies that need scientific input, among them health-related issues, climate change, energy options, and regulation of new technologies such as bioengineering and artificial intelligence.
Though they have always been well aware of this conflict, scientists typically overstate the nature of scientific knowledge at a given time and this encourages public mistrust of science as scientific knowledge claims change with changing evidence and changing assumptions.
