Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Second Edition
- Downloads：4665
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-07-04 09:19:07
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Peter Godfrey-Smith
- ISBN：022661865X
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
How does science work？ Does it tell us what the world is “really” like？ What makes it different from other ways of understanding the universe？ In Theory and Reality， Peter Godfrey-Smith addresses these questions by taking the reader on a grand tour of more than a hundred years of debate about science。 The result is a completely accessible introduction to the main themes of the philosophy of science。 Examples and asides engage the beginning student; a glossary of terms explains key concepts; and suggestions for further reading are included at the end of each chapter。
Like no other text in this field， Theory and Reality combines a survey of recent history of the philosophy of science with current key debates that any beginning scholar or critical reader can follow。 The second edition is thoroughly updated and expanded by the author with a new chapter on truth， simplicity， and models in science。
Like no other text in this field， Theory and Reality combines a survey of recent history of the philosophy of science with current key debates that any beginning scholar or critical reader can follow。 The second edition is thoroughly updated and expanded by the author with a new chapter on truth， simplicity， and models in science。
Reviews
sube
，
The first third was pretty great and gave a good overview of i） empiricism， ii） popper， iii） kuhn and iv） lakatos， laudan and feyerabend。 The middle， the ones discussing the sociology of science & feminism， as well as his two chapters on naturalism were quite good still， but were not as great as the first third -- and the last I felt was a bit too brief in the width of the topics， and also i feel generally could have used a better presentation。 There are also some egrerious comments throughout， The first third was pretty great and gave a good overview of i） empiricism， ii） popper， iii） kuhn and iv） lakatos， laudan and feyerabend。 The middle， the ones discussing the sociology of science & feminism， as well as his two chapters on naturalism were quite good still， but were not as great as the first third -- and the last I felt was a bit too brief in the width of the topics， and also i feel generally could have used a better presentation。 There are also some egrerious comments throughout， because the author is generally open about his opinion - even if he always presents the idea first。Nonetheless， it did its job satisfyingly， and it teached me a lot on this topic。 。。。more
Florence Plaster
，
I left the book with the feeling of a few loose ends。 We never actually arrive at a conclusion， but rather a final last compilation of the three main philosophies: Imperialism， naturalism， and scientific realism。Of course， the book discusses philosophy and is almost destined for a somewhat slippery ending。Great discussions and reflections from Hume， to Bayes （and Laplace）， to Popper， and a few more。A very thought-provoking book， nonetheless！
Muhammad Hassaan Saleem
，
Philosophy of science is a fascinating subject。 It asks the questions like， "How scientific knowledge is produced？"， "How scientific theories are made？"，"Can there be more than one understanding of the natural phenomena at a time？ and if the answer to this question is yes， then how to choose one understanding as to be the right one and how to compare the two understandings"， "Is scientific understanding describing reality or is it just an attempt to predict our perceptions？" and more practical q Philosophy of science is a fascinating subject。 It asks the questions like， "How scientific knowledge is produced？"， "How scientific theories are made？"，"Can there be more than one understanding of the natural phenomena at a time？ and if the answer to this question is yes， then how to choose one understanding as to be the right one and how to compare the two understandings"， "Is scientific understanding describing reality or is it just an attempt to predict our perceptions？" and more practical questions like， "How to divide scientists in different competing research programs？"， "How to regulate the incentives in science to maximize the productivity of scientists？" and "How to choose one theory over the other for practical applications in the world？"。All of these questions （and more questions than that） are addressed by a plethora of scientific philosophers （before but mainly） in the 20th century。 This book is an attempt to familiarise the reader with the ways of thinking， language used， and the ideas developed in this era， by these philosophers of science。 The author touches upon the major ideologies in the philosophy of science in the 20th century including logical positivism， Popperian ideas， Kuhnian ideas， scientific relativism， scientific realism， logical empiricism， naturalism， feministic concerns about the practice of science， and baysianism。 Moreover， he discusses the similarities and differences between these ideas， and he also lists the strong and weak points of all these theories。Moreover， he also discusses some relatively minor （but hugely important） questions that were discussed by people like Lakatos， Lauden， and Feyerabend （which came after the publishing of Kuhnian ideas）。 In addition， he also points out the potentially destructive traditions that have been with us in the past （and some of them are still with us） like science wars， post-modernism， and the view that many sociologists take on science's practice （I am talking about the ideas regarding the relativistic nature of scientific knowledge and not about the ideas regarding scientist's desire of recognition which is also developed by some sociologists e。g。 Hull）。In the end， the author talks about his idea which is a mixture of scientific realism， empiricism and， naturalism。 In summary， this book is a very good introduction to the major problems and major questions addressed in the philosophy of science。 It also equips the reader with the jargon that is used in the philosophy of science and thus， the reader can read many works on the philosophy of science after reading this book。 Moreover， it makes the reader appreciate the fact that simple answers to some of the deepest problems in the philosophy of science may have immediate problems if one thinks a little deeply （but many people don't realize those problems because they think that the problem is too trivial）。 For example， take the problem of theory confirmation and realize that how Raven's paradox （which is simple enough） destroys the "obvious" answer。 。。。more
Enda
，
Very accessible， but could do with more examples。
Danny
，
So this is technically the first philosophy book I've read， which means I don't really have much of a comparative database to make a proper review of the material。 All I can say is that I had a basic understanding of philosophy terms going in， but didn't have any real knowledge on the field of philosophy of science， and yet I understood （or at least， I think I do） the majority of the book。 I think it's written well and clearly and doesn't require much knowledge on the subject going in。 Godfrey-S So this is technically the first philosophy book I've read， which means I don't really have much of a comparative database to make a proper review of the material。 All I can say is that I had a basic understanding of philosophy terms going in， but didn't have any real knowledge on the field of philosophy of science， and yet I understood （or at least， I think I do） the majority of the book。 I think it's written well and clearly and doesn't require much knowledge on the subject going in。 Godfrey-Smith does a good job of giving you the information you need to understand the theories and various issues he's discussing。 I like his conclusion and his idea of a combined empiricism-naturalism-realism approach。 Too messed up on allergy medication to write more though。 It's a good book imo 。。。more
Kiel Mitchell
，
Good overview， perhaps one to come back to for a refresher
Ben
，
"Epistemology is not plumbing" I came into this book expecting it to be pop-philosophy， though I'm not sure why。 Let me say at the outset that this is an academic text intended to promote a specific philosophy of science held by Peter Gofrey-Smith， which he is putting forth in this publication。 The first 2/3 of the book are concerned with giving a historical introduction to the philosophy of science， as one would expect from the title。 I am a scientist， and the philosophy of science is not somet "Epistemology is not plumbing" I came into this book expecting it to be pop-philosophy， though I'm not sure why。 Let me say at the outset that this is an academic text intended to promote a specific philosophy of science held by Peter Gofrey-Smith， which he is putting forth in this publication。 The first 2/3 of the book are concerned with giving a historical introduction to the philosophy of science， as one would expect from the title。 I am a scientist， and the philosophy of science is not something I've ever considered before。 I found the review of past philosophies very educational， if sometimes arcane and hard to follow。 The final third of the book covers Godfrey-Smith's own philosophy which is interesting when it can be decoded through all of the jargon and references to other philosophies。 While I found myself agreeing with a lot of the descriptive philosophy （i。e。 this his how science tends to get done）， I found most of the prescriptive （how science should be done） boring and frankly not particularly useful。 As someone actively engaged in science， I can say that while this philosophy may be useful to consider on a macro scale， there is almost nothing I could read in this vein that would change the way I do science day to day。 I did find it interesting how some systems distinguish the field of fundamental physics as an entirely separate issue philosophically from the rest of science。 It seems to be much easier to argue whether quarks are real or just a manifestation of our equations than， for example， bacteria。 Overall I enjoyed this as a thought exercise， and a way to think about science I hadn't considered previously， but I don't know as I'll be taking much from it moving forward in my career。 3/5 。。。more
Nicholas Burge
，
Amazing way to get through Philosophy of Science class。 Have to rate it so high for the author's ability to make such a mind numbing subject make sense。 If you have need a jump off before reading some of the very inaccessible articles in the philosophy of science， this is the start。 Amazing way to get through Philosophy of Science class。 Have to rate it so high for the author's ability to make such a mind numbing subject make sense。 If you have need a jump off before reading some of the very inaccessible articles in the philosophy of science， this is the start。 。。。more
Kyle Tucker
，
Godfrey-Smith explains the history and theory of scientific method。 This book is great for anyone who wants to understand why Dawkins is crazy-town banana-pants。
Jacek Podlaski
，
Surprisingly not only for Philosophy undergrads， very insightful look on how empirical science has changed and should operate in the future
Helen。A。H
，
یهكهك له تایبهتمهندییهكانی مرۆڤ ئهوه كه له لایهك توانای پرسیاركردنی ههیه له جیهانی دهوروبهری خۆی و له لایهكی ترهوه مێشكی مرۆڤ توانای بیركردنهوه و داهێنانی بیرۆكهی جییاجییا و ئهبستراكتی ههیه بۆ وهڵامدانهوهی ئهم پرسیارانه。 كاریگهری ئهم تایبهتمهندییانهش به درێژایی مێژوو دهركهوتووه، مرۆڤهكان به ههموو جۆر پرسیاریان خولقاندووه و به دوای وهڵامی جۆر به جۆر كهوتوون بۆ پرسیارهكانییان و زۆربهیجار خۆیان بهپێی شیردنهوهو بیردۆزهكانییان وهڵامیان داناوه。 ئ یهكهك له تایبهتمهندییهكانی مرۆڤ ئهوه كه له لایهك توانای پرسیاركردنی ههیه له جیهانی دهوروبهری خۆی و له لایهكی ترهوه مێشكی مرۆڤ توانای بیركردنهوه و داهێنانی بیرۆكهی جییاجییا و ئهبستراكتی ههیه بۆ وهڵامدانهوهی ئهم پرسیارانه。 كاریگهری ئهم تایبهتمهندییانهش به درێژایی مێژوو دهركهوتووه، مرۆڤهكان به ههموو جۆر پرسیاریان خولقاندووه و به دوای وهڵامی جۆر به جۆر كهوتوون بۆ پرسیارهكانییان و زۆربهیجار خۆیان بهپێی شیردنهوهو بیردۆزهكانییان وهڵامیان داناوه。 ئێستاشی لهگهڵدابێت له جیهانی ههنووكهیی و به تاییبهت له چهند سهدهی كۆتاییدا دهبینین كه مرۆڤایهتی بهر لێشاوی لێكدانهوه و شیكردنهوه كهوتووه كه زۆر لهم لێكدنانهوه دژیهكیشن。 چۆن؟ له كۆتایی ئهم نوسینه دهزانیت。مرۆڤ چهندین رێگای گرتۆتهبهر بۆ گهیشتن به وهڵامهكانی دهكرێت ههمان پرسیار به شێوهیهكی （فهلسهفی، ئاینی، زانستی،،هتد） وهڵام بدرێتهوه。 بهڵام له چهند سهدهی رابڕدوو تێبینی ئهوه دهكهین كه وهڵامه زانستییهكان باوترین و ویستراوترینن، له دیبهیت و گفتووگۆكاندا تیۆری و بهڵگهی زانستی وهك دڵنییاترین سهرچاوه بهكاردێن و له دڵی خهڵكیش زانست خهریكه له ركابهرهكانی دهباتهوه ئهمهش هۆكاری خۆی ههیه كه دواتر لێیان دهدوێین。 بهڵام لێرهدا چهند پرسیارێك دێته ئاراوه ئهویش ئهوهیه كه ئایا پهیوهندی （تیۆری）، （ئهبسترهكشن） و （لێكدانهوه） زانستیهكان لهگهڵ راستی و جیهانی واقیعدا چییه؟ ئایا تا چهند دهتوانین دڵگهرم و دڵنییابین له تیۆری زانست؟ ئایا زانست توانای ئهوهی ههیه كه （ جیهان） وهك خۆی بناسێنێ؟ و پێویسته زانست چۆن كاربكات كه بتوانێ بمانگهینێته وهڵامه دروستهكان؟ و زانین چۆن له رێگهی زانستهوه بهدهست دێت؟ ئهمانه كۆمهڵێك پرسیارن كه دوو رووی بابهتهكه دهخهنه ژێر تێبینی، پرسیار لهوه دهكهین كه زانست چۆن كاردهكات و چهند دڵنییایی دهدات كه روه وهسفیهكهیهتی（descriptive）، روهكهی تر ئهوهیه پێویسته زانست چۆن كاربكات（normativity） كه ههر ئهمه فهلسهفهی زانست له خودی زانست جییادهكاتهوه。 ههروهها ئهم پرسیارانه دهكهونه بازنهی （ئێپیستیمۆلۆجی） هوه كه بوارێكی فهلسهفییه كه گرنگی به سروشت و سنوورهكانی زانین دهدات وله چۆنییهتی بهدهستهێنانی زانین دهكۆلێتهوه و ئێمه لێرهدا ئاراستهی زانستی دهكهین。 له فهلسهفهدا و بهتایبهت فهلسهفهی زانستدا وهڵامی ئهم پرسیارانه به چهندها جۆر دراوهتهوه كه باسی گرنگترین و نوێترینیان دهكهین:-- بازنهی ڤییهنا كه له چهندین فهیلهسوف و زانا و كۆمهڵناسی وڵاتی نهمسا پێكهاتبوو كه له ژێر كاریگهری فهلسهفه سهرهتاییهكهی فهیلهسوفی نهمسایی ڤیتگنشتاین دا بوون （له كتێبی تراكتاتسدا لهوه دهدوێت كه ئێمه لهرێی زمانهوه شیكردنهوه بۆ جیهان دهكهین ههر بۆیهش بۆ تێگهشتن لهوهی ئێمه چۆن له جیهان تێدهگهین پێویسته سهرهتا له چۆنیهتی كاركردنی زمان بگهین） وهڵامهكهیان بهستهوه به لۆجیك و ههروهها فهلسهفه و تیۆری زمان، ئهمانه كۆمهلێك زانا بوون كه لهو بروایهدابوون زانین و زانستیش له ڕێگهی ئهزموونكردنهوه بهدهست دێت （Empiricism） و ئهم ئهزموونه ئهبستراكت هش له ڕێگهی زمان هوه و باشترین شیكردنهوهش بۆ زمان و ئزموون برییه له شیكردنهوهیێكی لۆجیكی。 له زماندا راستییهكان بهسهر دوو جۆردا دابهش دهبن （Analytic/ Synthetic Distinction）، كه （Analytic truthes） ئهو راستییانهن كه بههۆی زمانهكهیانهوه راستن و راستی و دروستییان له چوارچێوهی زمان دهرناچێت بهوپێیهش راستی بهتاڵن وهك ئهم رستهیه（ ههموو پیاوێكی سهڵت بێ ژنه） یاخود ئهو بهشهی ماتماتیك كه ناتوانرێ به شێوهیهكی پراكتیكاڵ بهكاربهێنره （pure mathematics） 。 （Synthetic truths） ئهو راستییانهن كه بۆ ئهوهی راست بن پێویسته به زمان و ههروهها راستیان له جیهانی دهرهوهدا پشتراست بكرێنهوه وهك ئهمڕۆ باران دهبارێت یاخود ماتماتیكی پراكتیكاڵ و ههروهها لهو بڕوایهدان راستیه زانستییهكانیش جۆرێكن لهمانه كه پێویستییان بهوهیه بۆ پشتراستبوون له جیهانی دهرهوه لێی بكۆڵدرێتهوه نهك له سیستهمێكی ئهبستراكت كه نهتوانرێت له واقیعدا بهكاربێنرێت。 جا زانست به پێی （verification theory meaning） یهكهكێكه لهو جۆرانهی راستیه （synthetic） كه توانهی پاسهدانی ههیه。 （ تیۆری پاسهدانی مانا） كه بۆ راستییه （synthetic） بهكاردێت و بانگهشهی ئهوه دهكات كه ههر راستییهك بۆ ئهوهی راست بێت و مانایهك ببهخشێت پێویسته بتوانرێت پاسهدان بكرێت و مهبهستیش له پاسهدان ئهوهیه كه بتوانرێت راستی و دروستییان له واقیع دا تاقیبكرێتهوه ههتا ئهگهر له تاقیكردنهوهكهدا رهتش بكرێنهوه، یان به جۆرێ تر توانای ئهزموونكردن و تاقیكردنهوهیان ههبێت 。 و ئهگهر تێبینی بكهی راستیه زانستیهكان به زۆری لهم جۆرهن و بهپێی بروای زانستی بازنهی ڤییهنا ههر راستیهك لهم جۆرهنهبوو بێمانا و نازانستی له قهڵهم دهدرێت。 بازنهی ڤییهنا ناوی به رێكخراوی （لۆجیكی-ئهزموونگهر） یش دهركرد له دوای جهنگی جیهانی و ئهو دیدگایه لۆجیكییهش كه بۆ زانست ههیانبوو وهك （دهیڤید هیوم） بوو كه باوهریان وابوو راستییه زانستییهكان به شێوهی ئینداكشن （induction） و ئهزموونكردن بهدهست دێن。 （ ئێنداكشن جۆرێكه له لۆجیك كه بهم جۆره كاردهكات : پێكدێت له بهڵگهیهك یان زیاتر كه پێی دهوترێت （Premise） ئهم بهڵگهیه پاڵپشتی له بانگهشه زانستیهكه یاخود تیۆرییهكه دهكات كه دهبێته ئهنجام （Conclution）。 جا لۆجیكی ئینداكشن بهڵگهكانی له ئهزموون هكانی پێشترهوه وهرگرتووه بهوپێیهش ناتوانین لێی دڵنییابین و ناتوانرێت به دڵنییاییهوه هیچمان بۆ بسهلمێنێت، چونكه ئهو شتهی له رابردوو روی داوه مهرج نییه به دڵنییاییهوه له داهاتوش روبدات。 نم\ دوێنێ و پێر و رۆژهكانی پێشتریش رۆژ له رۆژههڵاتهوه ههڵیكردووه كهواته بهیانیش رۆژ له رۆژههڵاتهوه ههڵدهكات。 به ئهگهری زۆرهوه بهیانیش رۆژ له رۆژههڵات ههڵدهكات بهڵام ئهم ئهگهره %١٠٠ و دڵنییا نییه） 。 ئیتر ئهم جۆره لۆجیكه له زانست بهكاردێت كه ههتا ئهگهر سودبهخش و راستیش بێت بهڵام دڵنییا و رهها نییه。 بهوپێیهش راستییه زانستییهكان ئهگهر به زۆرترین رێژهش راست بن بهڵام هیچ كات دڵنییایی و رههاییله %١٠٠ له زانستدا نییه و ههر كاتێك له كاتهكان دهكرێت گۆرانكاریهكی كتوپر روبدات。 لهمهوهش دهگهینه ئهو ئهنجامهی كه ئهزمونگهره ڤییهنییهكان به زۆری باوهریان بهوه نهبووه كه زانست دهتوانێت شیكردنهوهی راست و دڵنییای جیهان و واقیعمان بۆ بكات به تتهواوی بهڵام لهو بروایهشدابوون كه زانست دهتوانێت دڵنییاترین واسفمان بۆ بكات。تا ئێرە با بەس بێت، ئەوەی تری با بۆخۆم بمێنێ。 ئێوەش ئەگەر دەتانەوێت بیرورای پۆپێر، کوهن، کواین، لاکتۆز، فایێربان، لێویس و چەندین فەیلەسوفی تر بۆ وەڵامی ئەم پرسیارانە بزانن و ئەگەر دەتانەوێت زیاتر ئاشنای چۆنییەتی کارکردنی زانست بن دەست کە بە خوێندنەوەی ئەم پێشەکییە ناوازەیە。。。。 。。。more
Will Cotton
，
A decent overview of developments in the philosophy of science over the 20th century with some flaws。 Godfrey-Smith does a good job of clearly explaining most of the topics， though I was disappointed with his treatment of Bayesianism。 Aside from an affectation of grief that we have to deal with （gasp！） equations and （GASP！） math （I found this particularly grating given the relative sobriety of the rest of the text）， I think he misses the robustness of Bayesian analysis。 The analogy to gambling a A decent overview of developments in the philosophy of science over the 20th century with some flaws。 Godfrey-Smith does a good job of clearly explaining most of the topics， though I was disappointed with his treatment of Bayesianism。 Aside from an affectation of grief that we have to deal with （gasp！） equations and （GASP！） math （I found this particularly grating given the relative sobriety of the rest of the text）， I think he misses the robustness of Bayesian analysis。 The analogy to gambling and betting is not as incidental as he claims。 The scientific method itself amounts to a kind of iterated betting。I also found that the text could have done a much better job justifying the value of why we do philosophy of science in the first place aside from a lame kind of "learning how to think" or some such nonsense。 Why are these questions worth asking？ Can we expect that in attempting to answer them we'll have any kind of effect on the actual practice of science？I could have also done with a more thorough dressing-down of some of the more ridiculous claims made from students of "science studies" but perhaps summarizing them in their own terms serves that purpose just as well。 And perhaps that wouldn't have been politically advisable。 Probably the best thing to do is ignore them; we could probably do without that chapter completely。Quibbles aside， this is a solid， readable introduction to recent developments in the philosophy of science。 Probably appropriate for an intro philosophy of science course for non-philosophy majors。 But don't expect it to convince you of the value of the field if you aren't already。 。。。more
Harsha Gurnani
，
Definitely preferred the more sociological discussions - the reward and incentive structure， competition/collaboration， underrepresentation and bias， - rather than the more epistemological questions， a few exceptions being - on the role of representations （linguistic， mathematical， model etc） to get the relationship between theory and reality （I definitely don't subscribe to the more instrumentalist view that empirical adequacy/predictive ability is all there is）， distinction between constructio Definitely preferred the more sociological discussions - the reward and incentive structure， competition/collaboration， underrepresentation and bias， - rather than the more epistemological questions， a few exceptions being - on the role of representations （linguistic， mathematical， model etc） to get the relationship between theory and reality （I definitely don't subscribe to the more instrumentalist view that empirical adequacy/predictive ability is all there is）， distinction between construction of ideas versus that of reality， theory-ladenness of observations， misguided notions of science as "objective"， and related bit on the differential impact of the same evidence depending on the strategy/framework/question asked （something the logical empiricists would probably hate）。 I like the author's general tendency to offer pluralist treatment - many things can be true/more relevant depending on the context。It's an introductory text but interesting nonetheless， for its philosophical and sociological treatment of science， useful for people outside science but also critical for reflection by scientists themselves。 。。。more
Zach Glickson
，
Fantastic introduction to philosophy of science。 Very straightforward， good amount of history with just enough of personal reflection by the author to make it original and flow coherently。 Definitely worth a second read for more analytical reading。
Ali Jones
，
This anglosaxon trash is probably some of the most arrogant introductions to philosophy that I have ever seen。 A comparable book is Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy"。 Although both of these are bad books， they make excellent toilet paper: Packed with banal statements and childish readings。 This anglosaxon trash is probably some of the most arrogant introductions to philosophy that I have ever seen。 A comparable book is Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy"。 Although both of these are bad books， they make excellent toilet paper: Packed with banal statements and childish readings。 。。。more
Vinicius Francisco Apolinario
，
Excelente obra introdutória sobre a filosofia da ciência。 O que ela tem de especial？ Primeiro， a exposição do autor é MUITO caridosa， no sentido de levar bem a sério a argumentação das principais tradições da filosofia da ciência， mesmo aquelas rejeitadas por ele。 Segundo， o vasto background de Godfrey-Smith lhe permite expor tanto o conteúdo filosófico quanto o contexto científico e histórico presente na construção das principais tradicionais filosóficas da ciência （como o neopositivismo， poppe Excelente obra introdutória sobre a filosofia da ciência。 O que ela tem de especial？ Primeiro， a exposição do autor é MUITO caridosa， no sentido de levar bem a sério a argumentação das principais tradições da filosofia da ciência， mesmo aquelas rejeitadas por ele。 Segundo， o vasto background de Godfrey-Smith lhe permite expor tanto o conteúdo filosófico quanto o contexto científico e histórico presente na construção das principais tradicionais filosóficas da ciência （como o neopositivismo， popperianismo， historicismo de Kuhn， até mesmo a tradição pós-moderna dos Estudos Culturais）。 Em terceiro lugar， Smith é muito atencioso em não só apresentar as teorias historicamente canônicas， como também busca defender suas próprias teses durante os capítulos （metade do livro é histórica， metade é baseada nas suas próprias reflexões sobre o assunto， com um capítulo final primoroso， no qual busca combinar naturalismo， realismo e empirismo）。 Smith é provavelmente o filósofo da ciência mais cientificamente informado que eu já ali （até aqui， pelo menos）。 Leitura mais que recomendada。 Eu garanto que o leitor não vai se decepcionar。 Minha nota é， na verdade， 10/5 estrelas rsrs。 Sou muito simpático à concepção de naturalismo defendida pelo autor:"Naturalism in philosophy requires that we begin our philosophical investigations from the standpoint provided by our best current scientific picture of human beings and their place in the universe。 We begin from this picture， and we do not try to give a general justification， from outside of science， for our entitlement to use it。 The science we rely on is not completely certain， of course， and may eventually change。 The questions we try to answer， however， need not be derived from the sciences; our questions will often be rather traditional philosophical questions about the nature of belief， justification， and knowledge。 Science is a resource for settling philosophical questions， rather than a replacement for philosophy or the source of philosophy’s agenda" （p。 154）。Sou igualmente simpático à sua concepção de realismo: "We all inhabit a common reality， which has a structure that exists independently of what people think and say about it， except insofar as reality is comprised of thoughts， theories， and other symbols， and except insofar as reality is dependent on thoughts， theories， and other symbols in ways that might be uncovered by science" （p。 176）。 。。。more
David Jijelava
，
Overall， book is quite good， but some chapters are better than others。 I appreciate the author providing and defending his positions， but in some places the text was too repetitive， while other places lacked details and context to make it easy to follow。 I like that the author throws in the Bayesian approach into the discussion。 But that grue color philosophy got my head spinning！
Jonathan Mannhart
，
Expecting to get some flak for this:Honestly， this book convinced me that philosophy of science is less important than I thought。 It's not that it's a bad book， the book is perfectly all right。 But hearing so much of the take in the style of “name any modern scientist who isn't embarrassingly unaware of the history and philosophy of science“， which has been a lot in my Twitter feed （full of academics） lately， I'm more on the side of the embarrassingly unaware scientists。 There are definitely imp Expecting to get some flak for this:Honestly， this book convinced me that philosophy of science is less important than I thought。 It's not that it's a bad book， the book is perfectly all right。 But hearing so much of the take in the style of “name any modern scientist who isn't embarrassingly unaware of the history and philosophy of science“， which has been a lot in my Twitter feed （full of academics） lately， I'm more on the side of the embarrassingly unaware scientists。 There are definitely important parts to PoS， but I think some lectures/blogposts/discussions on Popper， Bayesianism， and maybe Kuhn cover most oft it。 The rest， especially the second half， ist just。。。 boring （is science real or not real？ Never mind if it's useful。 Is it *real*？）， very specific （what was Feyerabend up to all the time？）， or obvious （hot theory: scientists want to gain status， especially among their peers） to me。 Maybe day-to-day scientists lack the vocabulary to describe their processes in the same terms as philosophists， but that doesn't necessarily mean they're unaware。 I'd say， spend more time in the lab instead of being bullied into learning philosophy of science。 （Or read this book if you need it for your conscience， it's not long。） Finally， the author doesn't seem to understand Bayesianism （and why it's so great） or its followers very well， to whom he often refers to in cult-like terms。 I don't know what he's talking about。Caviat: I agree that lots of science is broken， especially in the social sciences & medicine， but that doesn't seem fall under philosophy of science （？ Or at least the scope of this book） and deserves separate books on replicability， diversity， incentives， and statistics。 Maybe in 50 years PoS will catch up。If you want an intro on how people （more specific: philosophers） thought and think about epistemology and science， read this book。If you want an intro to the best methods we currently have （to my knowledge） for epistemology and science， read Rationality: From AI to Zombies by Yudkowsky。 。。。more
Zachary Sokol
，
Read this book a while back on suggestion from a prof who was reading Phil of Science as an example of “what bad philosophy of science looks like”
Rodrigo Lorenzi
，
Nice overview oh the philosophy of science and its evolution。 Sometimes it's hard to understand。 I think the author should have invested more in examples。 Like applying the different philosophies to a same scenario。 Nice overview oh the philosophy of science and its evolution。 Sometimes it's hard to understand。 I think the author should have invested more in examples。 Like applying the different philosophies to a same scenario。 。。。more
Dean Tarnovsky
，
An excellent intro to the subject of Philosophy of Science， but lacked much needed examples to illustrate the concepts。 Can be quite frustrating at times。 The audiobook is read by Matthew Lloyd Davis， who is outstanding
Pinarnaz Eren
，
Çok akıcıydı， çok beğendim ama bitirmem uzun sürdü :（
Todd
，
With this uneven entry into the annals of the history of the philosophy of science， Godfrey-Smith starts off on a tour-de force tour and takes us on a grand tour of the field for the last hundred years。 Well， up to twenty years ago， since the book is almost twenty years old now。 If only he ended it the way he started it， Godfrey-Smith's guided tour would be one to remember。 Instead， it's more like a trip through the Guggenheim where you start off with Frank Lloyd Wright and end up with experimen With this uneven entry into the annals of the history of the philosophy of science， Godfrey-Smith starts off on a tour-de force tour and takes us on a grand tour of the field for the last hundred years。 Well， up to twenty years ago， since the book is almost twenty years old now。 If only he ended it the way he started it， Godfrey-Smith's guided tour would be one to remember。 Instead， it's more like a trip through the Guggenheim where you start off with Frank Lloyd Wright and end up with experimental contemporary art befitting galleries around college campuses。 Godfrey Smith， who started his career as a mainstream philosopher of science， has had a bit of a resurgence since 2015 with his new persona as a scuba diving philosopher of science and his excellent and intriguing tract on the consciousness of the octopus。 All of that was a good ten plus years in the future at the time Theory and Reality was written。 If only we remember experiences for how they begin， this book would have a timeliness rather than a dated feel。 Godfrey-Smith starts off hot out of the gate。 He does just a bang up job guiding the tour from the aims of science inherited form the Enlightenment， past the logical positivists who he takes seriously and does a nice job of highlighting their strengths and contributions， as they have become something of a strawman to knockdown in recent times。 The same goes for his treatment of Karl Popper。 The highlight and showcase of the tour， though， is Thomas Kuhn， who features as Godfrey-Smith's lodestar and hero throughout。 The comparisons between Kuhn and his paradigms， Lakatos and his research programs， Laudan and his research traditions， and Feyerabend and his contrarianism ends the first third on a high note with the tour firing on all cylinders。 The middle third marks a shift。 Godfrey-Smith takes a detour after Kuhn， Lakatos， Laudan and Feyerabend through the sociology of science， science studies， and feminism。 In hindsight， the tour should have ended after this detour， which in Godfrey-Smith's hands marked a well-curated exhibit。 After this interesting and informative sidelight through the sociology of science， the chapter on science studies and feminism marks the segue between the stellar first third and the marked drop off in the final third。 Like an athlete who can't quit while he is ahead， Godfrey-Smith keeps plodding along。The problem is that if the tour starts off with a bang， it ends with a whimper。 We could rightfully call this third act problems。 The late 1990s and early 2000s clearly marked an interregnum in philosophy and the world in which philosophy， science， and philosophers were embedded。 Rather than recognizing the interregnum for what it was， Godfrey-Smith plods through into introductions of naturalism， scientific realism， Baysianism， without the command， gusto， and clarity that distinguished the earlier chapters。 This culminates in a slapdash attempt to affect a synthesis between empiricism， naturalism， and scientific realism。 The problem is that the last third of the book runs into a wall。 Rather than come back and revisit these areas with greater time， reflection， and maturity， Godfrey-Smith ran smack into them。 Luckily， with time and distance， we knew he got back up and found a second act of his writing career。 We will always have the first two-thirds of this book to remind us of his first act。 。。。more
Olatomiwa Bifarin
，
Theory and Reality tours about a century of rich arguments about science。 First， the author delved into how does science works？ As a social structure， mathematical modeling or empiricism？ The debate between classical rationalism and classical empiricism。 The whole gist about the logical positivists （and the ‘grave’ they dug for themselves）。 Induction， deduction， and what the hell constitute confirmation/evidence in science？ This naturally led to paradoxes and riddles: raven paradox， Goodman’s ne Theory and Reality tours about a century of rich arguments about science。 First， the author delved into how does science works？ As a social structure， mathematical modeling or empiricism？ The debate between classical rationalism and classical empiricism。 The whole gist about the logical positivists （and the ‘grave’ they dug for themselves）。 Induction， deduction， and what the hell constitute confirmation/evidence in science？ This naturally led to paradoxes and riddles: raven paradox， Goodman’s new riddle of induction， that kind of thing。 What more: Popper of course – the problem of demarcation， falsificationism， conjecture and refutations + two solid chapters on Kuhn。 Godfrey-Smith also covered theories of explanation （covering， casual， and unification theory） and many other topics。 It’s a nice treat。 It reads like an undergraduate textbook on the subject – just technical enough。 Might be tedious for a philosophy newbie。 。。。more
James Millikan SJ
，
The broad relevance of the content， combined with the clear and engaging prose， made this book hard to put down。 I started several books at the same time， but this —by a wide margin— was the first one I finished。 Among other fine qualities， I found reading this text to be high-scoring in terms of its learning-to-effort ratio。 In addition to its engaging style， Theory and Reality is thoughtfully structured。 Godfrey-Smith gives a good historical sketch of the last 100 years of philosophy of scienc The broad relevance of the content， combined with the clear and engaging prose， made this book hard to put down。 I started several books at the same time， but this —by a wide margin— was the first one I finished。 Among other fine qualities， I found reading this text to be high-scoring in terms of its learning-to-effort ratio。 In addition to its engaging style， Theory and Reality is thoughtfully structured。 Godfrey-Smith gives a good historical sketch of the last 100 years of philosophy of science before moving into contemporary topics in the field。 The result is an overview of the "greatest-hits" of philosophy of science —logical positivism， Popper， Kuhn， and so forth— that provides the necessary context to understand current debates ranging from the metaphysical （e。g。， scientific realism） to the mathematical （e。g。， Bayesian statistics）。Yes， at times the logical critiques of scientific methodology were a bit pedantic。 Yes， the author's presentation of his own philosophy of science became， in my view， unnecessarily technical。 Nonetheless， the text succeeds in its stated goal of providing solid introduction to the philosophy of science and， for that reason， is well worth the read。 Recommended。 。。。more
Tiago Faleiro
，
I read the book "Other Minds" from Peter Godfrey a few years ago， which I really enjoyed。 And lately， I started getting interested in the philosophy of science and decided to do some reading of it。 I actually found and ordered this book without recognizing the author， and it was only when the book was on my shelf that I hit me that I've read him before。 The book begins by trying to sketch what science is and how it works。 It presents the most basic 3 ideas that have been argued。 The first being I read the book "Other Minds" from Peter Godfrey a few years ago， which I really enjoyed。 And lately， I started getting interested in the philosophy of science and decided to do some reading of it。 I actually found and ordered this book without recognizing the author， and it was only when the book was on my shelf that I hit me that I've read him before。 The book begins by trying to sketch what science is and how it works。 It presents the most basic 3 ideas that have been argued。 The first being empiricism， claiming that all knowledge comes from experience and science is the systematic study of experience。 The second view is a mathematical one， and science is the understanding of the world through mathematical tools。 Finally， the third view is that science is based on its social structure。 It is the organization of science that makes it successful。 The author explores each one， giving it a foundation for the following chapters。 It starts by exploring the history of logical positivism。 It was argued that there is nothing "hidden" about the reality that science attempts to describe。 The goal should be prediction alone。 It was empiricism taken to its extreme。 While it made science seem appealingly simple and rationally grounded， it led to all types of problems， and trying to solve such problems was the key arena of modern philosophy of science。 The first big-name in the philosophy of science was Karl Popper。 He is still widely known today， and his idea of falsification was hugely influential。 In Popper's view of science， there was no such thing as confirming a theory。 All we could do was try to refute it， and that's it。 The second big name was Thomas Kuhn， who claimed that science is not an ever-increasing accumulation of knowledge but rather functions by paradigms and revolutions。 It popularized a historical and sociological approach to science which has stayed ever since。 These two names are likely ones you know if you are close to the field of either science or philosophy。 But that was only the start， and the 20th century continued developing countless rebuttals and theories。 Lakatos， Laudan， Feyerabend， Merton， and others are mentioned， often trying to pull the field away from what they perceive is a wrong approach to science。 While epistemology remained a significant problem， more social aspects took an important role。 How science is actually organized within a field by research programs， how science is moved by incentives of prestige， the balance of competition and cooperation， how open science should be to competing theories， and so forth。 The latter part of the book comes back to more fundamental problems。 The place of the "unobservable" within science， an optimistic or pessimistic scientific realism， laws of nature， the problem of causality， the need for explanations， Bayesian probability， and many others。 The last chapter is Godfrey's own approach to the philosophy of science。 It tries to combine empiricism， naturalism， and scientific realism。 It explores its benefits， the conflict between them， and how he resolves them。I liked reading the book， although I can't say it was the most enjoyable thing I've read lately。 It occupies a weird in-between world of not being so technical and in-depth to be categorized as a textbook， but it's also well beyond a basic overview for the layman。 While the book is marketed as sort of the best of both worlds， I felt like I got the worse of both worlds。 A very superficial analysis of many of the problems that plague the field， but at the same time， it seems to go into more detail than needed for a simple introduction。 The first part of the book was a bit difficult to read for me， and other parts got a bit tedious。 I'm glad that I didn't go for a longer book。 While I find many aspects of the philosophy of science appealing， reading this made me also realize that many are not that interesting。 At times there were arguments that I couldn't quite understand， but I also didn't bother to put the effort to try to understand， because I felt like it would make no difference。 I don't think it is a bad book， but I was expecting it to be a little more enjoyable。 It mostly rests on the nature of the field， however， and not on Godfrey's writing。 If you want to dive into the philosophy of science， this will provide both a good historical background and some of the problems that it tries to tackle。 But I would recommend reading a shorter introduction， to make sure that this something that you would like。 Especially if your view of philosophy of science rests heavily on Popper or Kuhn， which was my case。 After knowing tons of other philosophers covered in this book， they nevertheless remained the most interesting。 So most of the new stuff I learned was the boring part。If you want to dive directly into this book， make sure you're fine with this in-between approach the author took。 You will cover a lot more than a simple introduction， but also not enough to fully grasp all the nuance。 If you want something shorter and more concise， Okasha has written an introduction for Oxford's "very short introduction" series and might be a good resource if you want to get a simpler overview of the field。 。。。more
Ayaan Khan
，
this was a relatively challenging read， but overall Godfrey Smith did a good job breaking down concepts in the philosophy of science in the 20th century。 Some things i had to re read multiple times which was a combination of the difficulty and （sometimes） dullness of those parts as well as my short attention span （I have ADHD）。I still learned a whole lot from this book！
С。 Р。
，
Много добре структурирана книга。 Всеки учен и всеки който учи наука трябва най-малкото да зне за съществуването на тази дисциплина - философия на науката。 Планирам да изслушам Философия на науката a really short introduction на оксфордското издателство и после пак да изслушам тази， като междувременно да си държа и книжката на хартия за да си отбелязвам неща。。Книгата е брутална！Не е гладко。 Написана 。 Както са на Томъс Соуел， но не е и сложно。 Просто июа някои по-завъртяни моменти。Микс е между ис Много добре структурирана книга。 Всеки учен и всеки който учи наука трябва най-малкото да зне за съществуването на тази дисциплина - философия на науката。 Планирам да изслушам Философия на науката a really short introduction на оксфордското издателство и после пак да изслушам тази， като междувременно да си държа и книжката на хартия за да си отбелязвам неща。。Книгата е брутална！Не е гладко。 Написана 。 Както са на Томъс Соуел， но не е и сложно。 Просто июа някои по-завъртяни моменти。Микс е между история и философия。Горещо препоръчвам。Щеше да е 6 ако беше още по-разбираемо написана。 。。。more
Marts （Thinker）
，
This title generally presents a broad overview of the philosophy of science covering logical positivist thought and induction/confirmation。 It explores aspects of Karl Popper's theory of science， Kuhn's scientific revolutions and varied sociological theory elements。 The author also highlights philosophical naturalism and considers the interconnections of scientifically related philosophical debates。 This title generally presents a broad overview of the philosophy of science covering logical positivist thought and induction/confirmation。 It explores aspects of Karl Popper's theory of science， Kuhn's scientific revolutions and varied sociological theory elements。 The author also highlights philosophical naturalism and considers the interconnections of scientifically related philosophical debates。 。。。more
Joseph Allocca
，