The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science
- Downloads：4416
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-01-17 07:50:56
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Michael Strevens
- ISBN：1324091088
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Michael Strevens’s “provocative and fascinating” （Jennifer Szalai， New York Times） investigation of science asks two fundamental questions: Why is science so powerful？ And why did it take so long for the human race to start using science to learn the secrets of nature？ The Knowledge Machine’s radical answer is that science， by nature， calls on its practitioners to do the irrational。 By willfully ignoring religion， theoretical beauty， and especially philosophy， scientists embrace an unnaturally narrow method of inquiry， channeling unprecedented energy into observation and experimentation。 Rich with vivid historical examples and widely acclaimed， Knowledge Machine overturns many of our most basic assumptions about scientific discovery。
Reviews
Katie Cusumano
，
mostly very compelling （and deeply researched） but ultimately it’s a polemic and i think it would have argued its case more effectively if less forcefully
Timoer Frelink
，
If you want to understand how science works: read this book。 I agree with others that it is repetitious， but that only strengthens the message。 An excellent book！
Christopher Wells
，
Excellent read concerning the history of science and the development of the scientific method。 Stevens makes very convincing argument about why science did not develop earlier and why the “Iron Rule of Explanation” has successfully driven the development of so many advances over the past 150 years。 Very well written with interesting back stories for history’s greatest scientists。 Would be better as an audio book with an accompanying PDF。
John
，
Well， the author's not shy about pointing out where， for instance， Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn went wrong。。。I think his concept of the "iron rule of explanation" （the total dependence on experimental results mixed with subjective prioritization in evaluating said results） as a powerful but morally dangerous and spiritually limiting tool for getting at the roots of reality， makes sense。 The reader of this audio edition is excellent， consistently catching the flow of the narrative。 There are， alas Well， the author's not shy about pointing out where， for instance， Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn went wrong。。。I think his concept of the "iron rule of explanation" （the total dependence on experimental results mixed with subjective prioritization in evaluating said results） as a powerful but morally dangerous and spiritually limiting tool for getting at the roots of reality， makes sense。 The reader of this audio edition is excellent， consistently catching the flow of the narrative。 There are， alas， apparently a lot of illustrations in the book。 。。。more
Vahid-وحید Askarpour-عسکرپور
，
مایکل استریونز در کتاب ماشین دانش؛ نابخردی چطور علم مدرن را به بار آورد می‌گوید، «ماشین دانش در تحقق کنونی خود ثمربخشی والایی را در پیشرفت کالاهای انسانی از خود نشان می‌دهد، اما تجلی والای خیر انسانی نیست。» کمی قبل از آنکه شروع به نوشتن این یادداشت کنم، شاخص‌های عددی میزان آلودگی هوا را چک می‌کردم。 اعداد بالا بود！ این را روی صفحه نمایش لپ‌تاب خود دیدم؛ کالای گرانقدری که زندگی کنونی را به طور کامل دگرگون کرده است و جز از طریق همان محاسبات عددی، ممکن نبود که بتوان آن را اختراع کرد。 حالا اعداد روی مایکل استریونز در کتاب ماشین دانش؛ نابخردی چطور علم مدرن را به بار آورد می‌گوید، «ماشین دانش در تحقق کنونی خود ثمربخشی والایی را در پیشرفت کالاهای انسانی از خود نشان می‌دهد، اما تجلی والای خیر انسانی نیست。» کمی قبل از آنکه شروع به نوشتن این یادداشت کنم، شاخص‌های عددی میزان آلودگی هوا را چک می‌کردم。 اعداد بالا بود！ این را روی صفحه نمایش لپ‌تاب خود دیدم؛ کالای گرانقدری که زندگی کنونی را به طور کامل دگرگون کرده است و جز از طریق همان محاسبات عددی، ممکن نبود که بتوان آن را اختراع کرد。 حالا اعداد روی صفحه نمایش آن خبر از فاجعه می‌دهند؛ آدم‌های حساس و دارای بیماری‌های تنفسی توی این هوای آلوده به سادگی می‌میرند。 آیا مرگ آنها تأسف ماشین‌های آب‌وهواشناسی و دانشمندانی که آن دستگاه‌های محاسباتی و سنجشی را به کار می‌اندازند، برخواهد انگیخت؟ دانشمند-اپراتوری را دیده‌ای که توی اتاقک هواشناسی، زل زده باشد به مانیتور و با دیدن عدد ۵۰۰ برای ایستگاه امام خمینی تهران （عددی که چند لحظه پیش هوش از سرم پراند）، به حال آدم‌هایی که ممکن است به هر طریقی با محتوای این شاخص عددی زندگی و سلامت‌شان به خطر افتاده باشد دلسوزی کنند و اشک از چشمان‌شان جاری بشود؟ نه！ جای آن آدم‌های شاعرپیشه، فیلسوف یا رمانتیک در اتاقک اندازه‌گیری نیست。 سرپرست آزمایشگاه با دیدن کوچکترین صحنه تأثر عاطفی، سرد و خشک بالای چنین شخصی حاضر می‌شود و با لحنی محکم و قاطع می‌گوید، «دهانت را ببند و محاسبه‌ات را بکن。» این عدد از کجا اینقدر بالا رفته است؟ به سیم لپتابم زل می‌زنم。 به منبع برقی متصل است که کربن را می‌سوزاند تا شهرها و ماشین‌های اندازه‌گیری‌مان روشن بماند。 به اتومبیل‌ها، مترو، و به همه دانشمندان فیزیک و شیمی و مکانیک فکر می‌کنم که هدف‌شان افزایش آسایش در زندگی همراه با ارتقاءبخشی به سود و سرمایه است。 به ماشین‌های سنگین که سطح زمین را جراحی می‌کنند تا فلزات و سنگ‌ها و مواد معدنی دیگر را بیرون بکشند؛ همه آن ترکیباتی که لپ‌تاب من را تا اتومبیل توی خیابان مقابل خانه‌ام ”وحدت“ می‌بخشند。 مهندس معدن توی اتاقک میدانی‌اش نشسته پشت میز و سرگرم انجام محاسبات و ترسیم نقشه‌های معدن‌کاوی است。 اشک در چشم‌هایش جمع می‌شود و از خود می‌پرسد این چه کاری‌ست که با خانه عتیق خدایان می‌کنم؟ سرپرست آزمایشگاه، سرد و خشک بالای چنین شخصی حاضر می‌شود و با لحنی محکم و قاطع می‌گوید، «دهانت را ببند و محاسبه‌ات را بکن。»استریونز در این کتاب می‌خواهد ریشه و منشأ همین یک جمله را واکاوی کند。 خودت را جای آن محاسبه‌کننده بگذار که روپوشی سفید به تن کرده و میان ابزارهای آزمایشگاه‌اش عاداتی روزمره را چونان مناسکی مقدس و خدشه‌ناپذیر به اجرا می‌گذارد。 همه تلاشش را می‌کند تا دهانش بی‌مورد باز نشود و فکرش بی‌دلیل درگیر هرچیزی غیر از نتایج آزمون‌ها و اندازه‌گیری‌هایش نباشد。 چنین موجودی خیلی معقول و موجه به نظر می‌رسد لابد؟ نمادِ والای معرفت راستین。 اما اگر ارسطو، فیلسوف رسمی کلیسای کاتولیک در سده‌های میانه و پس از آن، روزی با چنین موجودی برخورد کند چه واکنشی نشان خواهد داد؟ استریونز حدس‌اش این است؛ ارسطو او را نادان‌تر از نادان، بی‌خردتر از بی‌خرد و عجیب‌تر از هر دیوانه‌ای خواهد یافت！ چه شد که او و روپوش سفیدش وارد میدان شد؟ مورخان علم، به‌خصوص دربحبوحة فجایع سدة بیستم （که صدالبته خودشان محصول همین محاسبه‌ها و اندازه‌گیری‌های از نگاه ارسطو نابخردانه‌اند）، خیلی امیدوارانه به چنین موجود نو-زاده‌ای چشم می‌دوختند。 کارل پوپر می‌گفت، برای اولین بار در طول تاریخ، علم مدرن ابزاری را برای تکذیب ادعاها در اختیارمان گذاشته است。 علم مدرن تنها نوع دانشی است که کار خود را از نپذیرفتن نظریه‌هایی آغاز می‌کند که از پس پیشبینی امور واقعی برنیایند。 چه دنیایی خواهد شد، آن دنیا که سیاست و حقوق و امر اجتماعی‌اش روی نظریه‌های پیشبینی‌پذیر بنیان یابد。 دانشمندان، درعین‌حال آفریننده و ویران‌گرند و داشتن این دو ویژگی در کنار هم، در آینده برای کلیت بشر سودمند خواهد بود！ توماس کوهن، فیلسوف-مورخ دیگر علم اما کمی شکاک‌تر بود。 او هر فرد دانشمند را دست و چشم بسته پارادایمی می‌دید که نهاد اجتماعی علم را برپا می‌داشت و او صرفاً مستخدم‌اش بود。 اما او نیز به رستگاری انسان به واسطه علم مدرن باور داشت؛ چون می‌دید که از پس هر انقلاب علمی، پارادایمی نمایان می‌شود که نسبت به پارادایم پیشین قدرت پیش‌بینی‌پذیری بهتری دارد。 آینده از آن علم است؛ چراکه نه؟عده‌ای ایزاک نیوتن را واپسین جادوگر-شعبده‌باز جهان قدیم می‌دانند و درعین‌حال، او را می‌توان نقطه آغاز سدة هفدهمی علم مدرن به شمار آورد。 همراه با او بود که دپارتمان‌ها به معنای واقعی کلمه شکل گرفتند。 او کیمیا می‌کرد، ستاره‌شناس بود، متون مقدس را شرح و تفسیر می‌کرد، محاسبات ابجد انجام می‌داد، طالع‌بینی را هم به‌وفور انجام می‌داد。 همه عالمان هم‌عصر و پیشین وی چنین بودند。 اما او چیزی غیر از همه اینها کرد؛ او میان هر کدام از این دلمشغولی‌ها مرز کشید و هر کدام را درون دپارتمانی جدا قرار داد。 نیروی گرانش وجود دارد و نظریه مادر فیزیک است، اما فقط همین！ وقتی نیوتن در حال محاسبات فیزیکی است، توصیف‌هایی درست و دقیق از پدیده‌های مورد مشاهده به دست می‌دهد و اصول علّی نظریه گرانش خود را بیان می‌کند، بدون توجه به ماهیت نهایی آن پدیده‌ها و در واقع بدون توجه به اینکه بتوان آنها را حتی فهمید یا نه！ تبعات نظریه گرانش برای خداشناسی چیست؟ از نیوتن بپرسی به تو می‌گوید، مگر توفیری هم دارد؛ یا اصلاً چه ربطی دارد؟ او یکی از نخستین کسانی بود که مطلقاً به این کار نداشت که اصول علّی‌اش چه پیامدهایی برای مبنای متافیزیکی جهان دارد؛ چون متافیزیک را در دپارتمانی جدا سراغ می‌گرفت！ دانشگاه نیوتونی، به قول نویسنده این کتاب، متشکل از دپارتمان‌هایی ساکت است که هر کس درون هر کدام از آنها سرگرم کار خود است و راهروها و محوطه‌های پیرامونی از هر بحث و فحص مشترکی خالی و انباشته از گرد و غبار است！ جادوی علم مدرن، اگر جادویی در کار باشد، دقیقاً همین است。کدام؟ نیوتن ابزارها و شیوه‌هایی را برای توصیف و شرح علی‌معلولی واقعیت‌هایی کشف می‌کند و می‌سازد که لازم نیست قابل فهم باشند، بلکه تنها کافی‌ست نشان داده شوند و بتوان سازوکارهای آنها را رام کرد。 نمونه امروزین چنین منطقی را فیزیک کوآنتومی شکل می‌دهد。 هیچ‌کس نمی‌داند چه چیزی در بطن آن واقع است و حتی از این بدتر، هیچ‌کس نمی‌تواند آن را بفهمد。 اما در هر آزمایشگاهی می‌توان پدیداری آن را نشان داد، توصیف کرد و شرحی بر آن ارائه داد。 بله！ «دهانت را ببند و محاسبه‌ات را انجام بده»！ سوبژکتیویته انسان برای اولین بار مقابل یک سری پدیده‌های ملموس و واقعی، اما عمیقاً غیرقابل درک حیران و سرگردان می‌ماند。 نیرویی شرور از روی میز تحقیق فیزیکی نیوتونی آزاد می‌شود که هرگونه متافیزیکی را دود می‌کند و به هوا می‌فرستد。 اما به‌شکلی عجیب و غیرعادی، عمیقاً هم سودمند است؛ از سده هفدهم تا همین امروز، کالاها و ابزارها و اشیاء حیرت‌انگیزی را به بار آورده است。 شکل و حالت مادی جهان را تنها در سه سده، به اندازه کل تاریخ کیهانی کن‌فیکون کرده است！ علم مدرن روی یک قاعده آهنی استوار است که از چهار اصل نوآورانه برخوردار است:- همه دانشمندان روی قدرت تشریحی اتفاق نظر دارند؛ ممکن است در یک زمینه خاص مخالف یکدیگر باشند، اما توصیف و شرح پدیده‌ها را به عنوان تنها ابزار متقاعدساختن هم می‌پذیرند。 دیگر خبری از درگیری‌های فرقه‌ای برای از میان بردن مخالف یا گردن‌زدن بدعت‌گذار نیست！ - میان بحث عمومی و فکر خصوصی تمایزگذاری می‌شود。 دانشمند می‌تواند در خلوت خود هر آسمانی را به هر ریسمانی ببافد، اما هنگام بحث عمومی، خواه روی اسلایدها، خواه میان صفحات مقاله و یا فصول کتاب، موظف است روی اصل توصیف و شرح علّی پدیده‌های آزموده تمرکز کند و پا را از حد مشاهدات مورد شرح فراتر نگذارد。 （و از اتفاق این، از منظر ارسطویی یکی از کودکانه‌ترین و نابخردانه‌ترین کارهایی است که می‌توان انجام داد。）- در هر بحث علمی باید به عینیت متعهد و ملزم ماند。 - ضروری است که در هر بحث علمی تنها بر نتایج آزمون‌های تجربی توسل جست。 اینها اصول قاعده آهنی علم مدرن‌اند。 قاعده‌ای که به اندازه آهن خلوص دارد، اما به همان اندازه هم شکننده و تخریب‌پذیر است。 اینکه به قول دکارت، هر آنچه تا امروز به ما رسیده را دور بریزیم و از همان پایه شروع کنیم، آنهم برمبنای همین اصول تجربی، کار آسانی نیست！ برای همین تا پیش از سده هفدهم و آنهم تنها محدود به اروپای شمال‌غربی، خبری از انسان‌هایی نبود که به طور کامل خود را ملزم و متعهد به تنها همین اصول چهارگانه بدانند。 برای عالمان و اندیشمندان و متفکران جهان باستان و میانه، سرسپاری به این اصول و تنها به همین‌ها برای کشف حقایق به قدری کودکانه، نامعقول و غیرممکن بود که حتی تصورش را هم دردناک می‌دانستند。 معنای متافیزیکی آن چیزی بود که حقیقت را می‌ساخت و این معنا، به نوبه خود نیاز چندانی به میکروسکوپ نداشت。 فیزیک نیوتونی را می‌توان نخستین رویکرد فکری در جهان انسان دانست که از آن معنای متافیزیکی زدایش می‌یابد و نشان می‌دهد که حقایقی وجود دارند که تنها می‌توان آنها را برمبنای محاسبات ریاضی نشان داد، اما نمی‌توان کتمان‌شان کرد。 نه اینکه فقط نتوان کتمان‌شان کرد، از آن بدتر، نمی‌توان به سادگی فهم و تفسیری متافیزیکی را بدان‌ها الصاق نمود。 حتی بارها پیش آمده که می‌توان آنها را از یک استاد آموخت و به خاطر سپرد، بدون آنکه فهم و درکی بتوان از آنها حاصل کرد。 علم مدرن نه آزمون است و نه تجربه؛ علم مدرن دقیقاً همین معطل‌گذاشتن سوژه شناسا در مقابل امور واقعی است که می‌توان با انجام مشاهده‌ها و ترتیب‌دادن آزمون‌های جان‌فرسا آنها را دانست، اما فهم معنا یا تفسیر سوبژکتیوشان بارها یا ممکن نیست، و یا علی‌السویه و حتی بی‌ربط است！ حالا، نظام آکادمیک به خصوص در دپارتمان‌های علوم، دقیقاً آدم‌های علم مدرن را تربیت می‌کند که به قاعده آهنی مذکور سوگند وفاداری خورده‌اند؛ اول، معنا و تفسیر و متافیزیک را کلاً یاد نگیرید؛ دوم، حتی در تفکرات خصوصی خودتان هم آن قاعده آهنی را زیر پا نگذارید。 تسرّی این قاعده به علوم انسانی، مثلاً باستان‌شناسی، اتفاقات بامزه‌ای را به بار آورده‌است。 علمای اعصار رنسانس و کلاسیک و عتیقه‌شناسان نخستین، با رجوع به متون ادبی و اسطوره‌ای و حتی بیان‌های شفاهی، پیکرک‌های زنانه را بی‌بروبرگرد ”الهه‌های مادر“ به شمار می‌آوردند。 باستان‌شناسان نو و علمی، آنها را به طور کل به عنوان اشیائی که به افکار مردمان پیش‌ازتاریخ تعلق دارند و نمی‌توانند مورد معناکاوی قرار بگیرند، از میان مطالعات باستان‌شناسیِ علمی خودشان بیرون راندند؛ مگر در زمینه اندازه‌گیری‌ها و محاسبات فرمی و در نسبت با بدنِ انسان‌های واقعی، یا اندازه‌گیری و شناسایی مواد خام و شیوه‌های فنی ساخت‌شان！ اما این علمِ باستان‌شناختی بر پیکرک‌ها که به تبعیت از قاعده آهنیِ علم مدرن حاصل می‌شود، دقیقاً چه چیزی را درباره این اشیاء به ما می‌آموزد؟ ساعت‌ها وسواس برای اندازه‌گیری ابعاد میلیمتری سرِ یک پیکرک را تصور کنید که از توی آن کلی جدول بیرون بیاید。 این می‌شود علم مدرن و نتیجه و حاصل آن。 اما مطمئنم حتی همان شخصی که این محاسبات را انجام داده، در خلوت خودش مخفیانه مسحور آن پیکرک و روح حاکم بر آن می‌شود و حتی ممکن است وسوسه شود و آن را تجسم الهه مادر یا باروری به شمار بیاورد！ غیر از این باشد، آن همه محاسبه و ایجاد جدول، چه فهمی را درباره این اشیاء به بار آورده‌است که در خور توجه باشد؟ جوابش با خودتان！قاعده آهنی علم مدرن در همة جنبه‌های فکر آکادمیک، از کادرهای پروپوزال گرفته تا تدوین گزارش نهایی و مقاله و کتاب حاصل از آن رخنه کرده است و به‌خصوص، در علومی که آنها را انسانی تلقی می‌کنیم، مثل نمونه مذکور پارادوکس‌ها و سردرگمی‌های گاه حیرت‌انگیزی را به بار آورده است。 این پارادوکس‌ها را باید به طور جدی موضوع مطالعات معرفت‌شناختی علوم انسانی، و به طور کل همه شاخه‌های علمی مدرن ساخت。 اما خلاف سوبژکتیویست‌های افراطی نظیر افکار مریضی مثل فرایابند، نمی‌توان و نباید فراموش کرد که علم مدرن با حضور خویش دروازه‌های بی‌سابقه و درخشانی را برای کسب معارفی بی‌سابقه گشوده است。 خلاف لاطاعلات فرایابندی، دانشمندان علوم مدرن دو کار را انجام می‌دهند که در کل نظام‌های معرفتی دیگر بی‌سابقه است؛ اول اینکه یکدیگر را تکفیر نمی‌کنند، بلکه یک چارچوب ارائه مباحث علمی را به شکل عمومی ایجاد می‌کنند （از طریق کنفرانس‌ها، مجلات و نشریات دیگر） و رقابت‌ها و تضارب آراء خویش را روی آن چارچوب جهت می‌دهند؛ دوم اینکه، همین اشکال عمومی انتشار، خودشان به آرشیوی از تصاویر، اشکال، مدل‌ها، فرمول‌ها و عینیات قابل تجربه و مشاهده و آزمون تبدیل می‌شود که در طول زمان نیز برحجم آنها افزوده می‌گردد و بدین‌شکل، یک فضای عمیقاً غیر و حتی ضد شخصی، ضد ایدئولوژیک و ضد باور به معنای رایج آن ایجاد می‌کند。 قاعده آهنی علم مدرن، حتی درباره انسان و جنبه‌های گوناگون او نیز منجر به کشف پدیده‌ها، امور واقع و قواعدی شده است که به همان اندازه گرانش و فیزیک کوآنتومی می‌توان آنها را دانست، اما نمی‌توان چرایی و معنا و تفسیر متافیزیکی برای آن قائل شد。 اما آیا همین به خودی خود گشاینده راهی به روی انسانیتی هر چه مطلوبتر و طراحی سیستم‌های حقوقی، سیاسی و اجتماعی هر چه بهتر نیست؟ قاعده آهنی علم مدرن را باید جدی گرفت。 درست است که بمب‌های اتمی و حجم بالای کربن‌های معلق در هوا محصولات همان قاعده به شمار می‌آیند، اما اصلاحات اجتماعی-انسانی، پدیده‌های مربوط به بهداشت و سلامت و بسیاری از راه‌حل‌های دیگر برای اوضاع دشوار کنونی‌مان، به همان اندازه تنها می‌تواند از بطن همان قاعده بیرون بیاید。 عظمت این قاعده به یک چیز است: امور واقع و پدیدارهایی در جهان وجود دارند که می‌توان آنها را دانست و از آنها الهام گرفت و بکارشان بست، حتی اگر نتوان آنها را فهمید و مورد تفاسیر معناشناختی و متافیزیکی قرار داد。 آنها آن بیرون‌اند و منتظر که بکار آیند؛ اما این به ما بستگی دارد که از طریق‌شان خود و جهان‌مان را به لبه پرتگاه هدایت کنیم، یا با استفاده از آنها جهان مطلوبتری برای خود و موجودات دیگر بسازیم。 。。。more
Tiago Faleiro
，
Science is such a big force in our world， but a lot of people take it for granted。 What exactly makes science so special？ And if it's so special， why did it take humanity so long to develop it？ The latter being particularly important and not a perspective I see often。 The emergence of science is often told through the scientific revolution， but few bother to ask what made that revolution happen。 Why not before？ This is one of the main questions of the book。 It was one of my favourite books this Science is such a big force in our world， but a lot of people take it for granted。 What exactly makes science so special？ And if it's so special， why did it take humanity so long to develop it？ The latter being particularly important and not a perspective I see often。 The emergence of science is often told through the scientific revolution， but few bother to ask what made that revolution happen。 Why not before？ This is one of the main questions of the book。 It was one of my favourite books this year and I devoured it as quickly as I could。 I love both philosophy and science， and this book combines both beautifully in addition to being rich in history。 It is the more nuanced and careful investigation I have seen， and what I have always craved when studying the topic。 It goes well beyond the basic thesis of Kuhn and Kopper， and more impressively， it doesn't settle for its purely philosophical claims but makes them stand against historical and sociological evidence， which both makes their theories reductionist of how science actually operates。 Strevens' main point is that science took so long because it is an unnatural way of looking at the world。 Not unnatural doesn't quite capture it， it is almost irrational。 It is a rich point that isn't easy to explain in a couple of sentences but he builds his argument well， especially by putting on the lenses of specific historical periods and making thought experiments of how one ought to think。 Even with our current knowledge， it would be incredibly hard to convince someone in the past why the scientific method is superior。The rich history was what really made the book powerful for me。 Countless examples are given which strengthen his point。 This what also something that made Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions very strong， but it's even better made here。 And some of the history I was honestly appealed at how I never encountered it before。 Most mind-blowing is how often science was badly done。 This isn't too surprising if we think of individual studies in modernity， but I am talking about the very foundations of the most important scientific discoveries ever made， from Einstein's relativity and its confirmation with the 1919 eclipse to Mendel's statistics on inheritance and Newton's experiments。 I honestly cannot comprehend how much I have studied philosophy and science and I never once heard about this。These historical cases really highlight the messy nature of science， and many more are given。 How it can be flawed， and how its roots go well beyond pure data or even rationality。 Yet， how why it still works besides all of that。 What he argues is that what makes science special is that it creates a game where everyone knows the rules and has to play by the rules。 And the rule is that empirical evidence is what counts， and nothing else。 What he calls “iron rule of explanation"。Scientists never actually work like this。 It is impossible to work with evidence alone because it always requires auxiliary assumptions。 Yet by playing the game nevertheless， the truth eventually emerges。 Or it is the game that has the highest likelihood of that happening。 The science itself never says which theory to believe。 It is only a process， a shared game。 It is also an open-ended game， one side can always come up with a new interpretation and a new experiment to try to support it。 What people fail to appreciate is that observation isn't new。 Even Aristotle relied on observation， and there are examples of him using it to completely disprove a hypothesis even if counter-intuitive。 What is unique to modern science， however， is that only observation counts， even at the expense of any philosophical， religious， spiritual， or aesthetic considerations。 Philosophers before the scientific revolution used observation， but they also used everything else at their disposal。 If you have many different tools in your toolbox， it is incredibly odd to think that you're better off throwing all of them except one and use it for everything。 It's not so much that the main idea of science didn't occur to previous generations， but more so that that idea seemed preposterous and dumb。What is curious is that while science works like that， scientists don't。 In their private lives， they are still motivated by beauty， harmony， and reason， like every other human being and just like Aristotle was。 The difference is a split between what motivates the scientist and what counts as proof for his claims。 And without these motivations， modern science would not exist since almost all major discoveries were made because of them。 The whole book was beautifully written。 It seemed to nail every aspect I ever wondered about， and explore paths that I never thought possible。 I feel bad for my review because it seems overly abstract， and perhaps not so different from the idea of science you may have。 But I believe it is fairly different， but hard to explain in a few words。 The countless historical examples are needed to truly encapsulate the vision of science that Strevens shines forth。 The ending of the book also contains a fair criticism of science and how it is conducted。 The details of which I shall omit in order to give you the pleasure of reading it unspoiled。 If you have any interest in science， read this。 The only criticism I have is that it is at times repetitive。 And with some historical examples， perhaps too many technical details were given。 Yet， it is well worth it。 If you have experience with philosophy of science， I believe that you will find some extra depth and insight compared to what you have read。 And if you're interested in science but never even touched philosophy of science， you will expand your worldview manyfold。 。。。more
Katie/Doing Dewey
，
Summary: Mostly useful for scientists as a great starting point for thinking explicitly about why we do science the way we do。This book sets out to answer two questions - why does science work？ and why did it take people so long to start using the current scientific method？ I wasn't thrilled by this pick from my science nonfiction book club。 I love learning new scientific information and this meta approach to the topic didn't appeal to me。 Although I still certainly don't agree with everything t Summary: Mostly useful for scientists as a great starting point for thinking explicitly about why we do science the way we do。This book sets out to answer two questions - why does science work？ and why did it take people so long to start using the current scientific method？ I wasn't thrilled by this pick from my science nonfiction book club。 I love learning new scientific information and this meta approach to the topic didn't appeal to me。 Although I still certainly don't agree with everything the author had to say， I ended up enjoying the book a lot。 As a scientist， I found it a useful prompt to evaluate how I approach my work。I thought the most interesting question the author asked was about why science works at all。 Theoretically， scientists are supposed to objective。 Realistically， it's impossible for people to set aside all subjectivity in their work。 He makes explicit that where objectivity is truly required is in professional communication。 He makes a great analogy between science and a coral reef。 In this analogy， the living， messy surface is the science being done now。 The skeleton of the reef is all that objective data we record and leave behind for future generations to build on。 Science can then converge on the right answer through this slow accretion of knowledge。Other parts of the book felt obvious to me， such as the author's definition of science as an evidence-based pursuit。 He tried to set this up as a brilliant new idea， but I think this is how most scientists would define what we do。 Although he tries to make this book general enough to capture all fields of science， he's clearly focused primarily on physics。 In particular， he places a real emphasis on the goal of deriving models and equations that are consistent with existing data。 He insists that having an explanation or mechanism for why something happens isn't important。 This view doesn't apply as well to biology。 For example， Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier are the ones who got the Noble Prize for CIRSPR because they're the ones who showed how it worked。 Last but not least， as a scientist， his final section about how scientists these days don't know anything about the humanities was kind of offensive。 I took art， philosophy， and literature classes in under grad and I'm one of many scientists I know with a humanities based hobby。Despite some limitations， this book was really thought provoking。 I think the author correctly identifies enough fundamental aspects of how science works that it could be of interest to a general audience。 However， I definitely found it most useful as a prompt to consider how I do science， so I'd primarily recommend it to other scientists。This review was originally posted on Doing Dewey 。。。more
Hayden Hamilton
，
Should really have been/stayed a long article。 His point is a good one。 The foundation of science is observable fact/experiment， not philosophy， intuitiveness， elegance， and the majority of that is mind-numbingly tedious work on minutia。
Ian Lea
，
Quite hard work - not a lightweight book at all， but interesting and worth it if you are sufficiently interested in scientific progress， and why science works。
John
，
The concept is interesting - finding an answer as to why other sophisticated cultures didn't come up with the scientific method。 This author's effort falls short。 He too commonly includes theoretical descriptions of science at work that just don't ring true。 He should read less philosophy and do more sociological/historical research on contemporary scientific work。 The concept is interesting - finding an answer as to why other sophisticated cultures didn't come up with the scientific method。 This author's effort falls short。 He too commonly includes theoretical descriptions of science at work that just don't ring true。 He should read less philosophy and do more sociological/historical research on contemporary scientific work。 。。。more
Richard
，
An excellent read。 Exceptionally clear for a philosophy book。 Very good critiques of Popper and Kuhn's flawed analyses of the scientific method。 Also， this contains a good summary on the recent history of philosophy of science。 He offers a good account of what science might actually be， even as his claim of irrationality seems weakly supported。 The irrationality thesis may fail to account for why science emerged when it did， however his account of the essence of what scientific inquiry is， is re An excellent read。 Exceptionally clear for a philosophy book。 Very good critiques of Popper and Kuhn's flawed analyses of the scientific method。 Also， this contains a good summary on the recent history of philosophy of science。 He offers a good account of what science might actually be， even as his claim of irrationality seems weakly supported。 The irrationality thesis may fail to account for why science emerged when it did， however his account of the essence of what scientific inquiry is， is really quite excellent & may prove to be true。 My favorite read on science this year。 。。。more
STEPHEN PLETKO
，
XXXXX How does science work， and why is it so powerful？ Why did science take so long to arrive？XXXXX“The…evidence-only constraint on scientific argument that constitutes all the method science needs to set humanity marching…toward truth deserves a grand name; I call it the IRON RULE OF EXPLANATION。Much of [this book] is given to understanding where the iron rule comes from， what it amounts to， and by what means it leads science toward enlightenment。。。If I am correct， then in this book you wil XXXXX How does science work， and why is it so powerful？ Why did science take so long to arrive？XXXXX“The…evidence-only constraint on scientific argument that constitutes all the method science needs to set humanity marching…toward truth deserves a grand name; I call it the IRON RULE OF EXPLANATION。Much of [this book] is given to understanding where the iron rule comes from， what it amounts to， and by what means it leads science toward enlightenment。。。If I am correct， then in this book you will discover how science really works。”The above quote （in italics） comes from this interesting book by Michael Strevens。 He is professor of philosophy at New York University。 Strevens has been writing about the philosophy of science for 25 years。Science is organized knowledge derived from empirical evidence （observation， research， and experimentation） carried on in order to determine the nature of principles of what is being studied。This book explores how science calls on its practitioners to do something apparently irrational: strip away all previous knowledge—such as theological/mythological， metaphysical， political， and philosophical—and channels unprecedented energy into observation and experiment。It is rich with biographies and details of discovery from Galileo， to Newton， to Einstein， an accessible and stimulating as well as timely analysis of how science really works and why we need it。Black and white illustrations are peppered throughout。 My favourite is entitled “Newton。”Finally， I had some problems with this book， three of which I will explain。 First the author states that it’s irrational that science rejects knowledge from other disciplines。 He never explains exactly why science does this。 Next， there is a long chapter of how science rejects aesthetic considerations。 This is untrue。 For example， to a physicist， beauty is symmetry。 Lastly， the author describes scientists as empiricist drones。 This is definitely untrue。In conclusion， this book effectively details how science works， why it is so powerful， and why it took so long to arrive！*** 1/2（2020; introduction; 4 parts or 14 chapters; main narrative 290 pages; acknowledgements; glossary; notes; references; list of illustrations; index; about the author）XXXXX 。。。more
Dakota Murray
，
The best thing about the book is the summing up of the major Popper vs。 Kuhn debate of the 20th century over the "method" of science。 This is done in an engaging and clear way， and for that reason alone I would recommend it to any practicing scientist who wants to understand a bit more about epistemology and sociology of science。 I don't like Strevens' treatment of those who came after Popper&Kuhn， however。 Scholars as diverse as Paul Feyerabend， Bruno Latour， and Harry Collins， are summed under The best thing about the book is the summing up of the major Popper vs。 Kuhn debate of the 20th century over the "method" of science。 This is done in an engaging and clear way， and for that reason alone I would recommend it to any practicing scientist who wants to understand a bit more about epistemology and sociology of science。 I don't like Strevens' treatment of those who came after Popper&Kuhn， however。 Scholars as diverse as Paul Feyerabend， Bruno Latour， and Harry Collins， are summed under a broad banner of social epistemologists and presented as a foil against Popper&Kuhn。 Strevens tacitly endorses the view of this group about the essential subjectivity of science， yet I feel doesn't do their arguments justice or represent them as equals in the wider methods debate。 Finally， Strevens outlines his own idea of a scientific method， based around an "iron rule" of scientific communication demanding arguments-by-evidence， at least in public forums， and a sort of natural consensus-making among scientists that directs them towards conducting more tests and crafting and accepting theories with more explanatory power。 I'm unsure how much I agree with this as a universal method of science; it leaves lots of things out; are non-empirical theorists and mathematicians， not scientists？ Are lawyers who employ similar strategies in court scientists？ Would conspiracy theorists， who often attempt a kind of "iron rule" in their arguments also qualify as scientists too？ His argument makes sense， yet although I have some experience with the history of science & epistemology， I don't have enough to take a side on whether Strevens' version of the scientific method holds water。 Most of his arguments are supported with historical examples of episodes in science， with a particular interest in the the observations of solar eclipses by Edington necessary for testing Einstein's theories， and the fuzziness and messiness of the data involved。 There are also some interesting parts about Louis Pasteur and Charles Darwin。 At times， however， Strevens' uses metaphors when he should default to simpler terms or more historical examples; for example， he for some reason refers to the Popperian & Kuhnian camps as "Monegues" and "Capulets"， which while cute， forces the reader to keep track of another set of names， and the metaphor itself contributes little。 Overall， a decent book。 I have personal issues with the argument， but that's fine。 I think the intended audience is practicing scientists with less interest in deep epistemological arguments; for those readers， I readily recommend it， and it will certainly teach them something about science。 For anyone with more than passing interest in the debates over the philosophy of science， much of the book will only serve as a refresher， and the description of the "Iron Rule" framework will likely feel too vague to really evaluate; I am sure that Strevens' academic works develop the argument more fully。 Give it a read if you're interested！ 。。。more
Carson
，
This book builds on the ground work laid by （at the time） radical fringe voices like those of Charles Fort questioning the orthodoxy of belief which supports the divide between Science and Not-Science。 But unlike those authors Stevens sees in the irrationality and contradictions of a science practiced as if objective as a necessary component to the "iron rule" （read to find out what that is） which creates the psychological tweak that keeps irrational humans working away at the coal mines of empi This book builds on the ground work laid by （at the time） radical fringe voices like those of Charles Fort questioning the orthodoxy of belief which supports the divide between Science and Not-Science。 But unlike those authors Stevens sees in the irrationality and contradictions of a science practiced as if objective as a necessary component to the "iron rule" （read to find out what that is） which creates the psychological tweak that keeps irrational humans working away at the coal mines of empirical minutae。 Worth a read！ 。。。more
Anthony Landreth
，
A Promising Account If you’re interested in the demarcation problem， history of science， or science policy， Strevens’ book is well worth your time。 The book is effectively written in a popular style so you don’t have to have a background in philosophy to follow the arguments。 Some of the biographical takes on Descartes and Newton might break down under close examination， but I don’t think those details affect the core argument for a theory of the scientific process that is really quite elegant。
Andrew Carr
，
"The Knowledge Machine" is perhaps the clearest explanation I have yet read of how scientists think。 Or at least， how they think they think。 It is both a celebration of science and a demonstration of the mental frameworks and guiding ethos of scientists。 As such， it is a book I wish I had encountered long ago at the beginning of my research career。Nominally， I am a ‘Political Scientist’， and while I pride myself on my understanding of politics， this is the first book that has really clarified fo "The Knowledge Machine" is perhaps the clearest explanation I have yet read of how scientists think。 Or at least， how they think they think。 It is both a celebration of science and a demonstration of the mental frameworks and guiding ethos of scientists。 As such， it is a book I wish I had encountered long ago at the beginning of my research career。Nominally， I am a ‘Political Scientist’， and while I pride myself on my understanding of politics， this is the first book that has really clarified for me what that second word， ‘scientist’ actually implies。 While I remain dismissive of the idea of social science and still dubious about the escape from subjectivity scientists claim for themselves， through this engaging read I at least better understand the – quite admirable - mindset of scientists。Strevens proposes that science is defined not by Popperian falsification method nor Kuhnian paradigms。 After a quick description of these approaches he proposes a two-part iron rule that guides scientific process。 First， arguments should be settled through empirical testing， second， seek tests in which only one of the competing hypotheses can be validated。 This reflects the ‘rules of the game’ which enables scientists however motivated， biased， and ultimately human to identify and settle their disputes。 We normally think that for intellectual work， “garbage in [meaning human biases] = garbage out”。 As such， we focus on how to improve the quality of input， developing more refined， objective， noble minds。 Strevens argues this is not how science actually works。 Rather， because there is agreement about what constitutes communication and evidence， the process can， indeed must involve garbage in。 Following Kuhn， he argues it is only the passions and personal factors can explain the extreme dedication to tedious lab work upon which scientific discoveries are built。 But since these factors are mutually put aside to both argue and judge results， they are complements rather than blinders on the progress of work。At its best， this is a book which embraces the absurdity of humanity。 Indeed Strevens seems to both identify and embody it。 For instance， there are long sections where he approvingly quotes scientists rubbishing philosophy as it is a discipline not strictly within the confines of the iron rule， and thus irrelevant。 Later on， he mounts an argument on behalf of aesthetic notions of order （a philosophical position） as a necessary element of science， and finally near the conclusion he notes how much of the scientific hostility towards philosophy is a self-imposed narrowness in order to help bind the scientific tribe and inculcate the next generation。 What to make of three such diverse positions？ And yet， it all relatively works， reflecting his broad view that however irrational and subjective the humans doing science are， by having a clear method of application and communication， it will still meaningfully contribute to the progress of science。 There are costs to this approach。 Science works， in Strevens view， because of the deliberate embrace of limits。 It focuses on a method at the cost of all else。 It focuses on narrow casual explanations rather than the broader characteristics of phenomena。 And as a discipline it is motivated by ‘dogma’ and led by ‘holy men’ who seek to champion its work， revile its opponents （such as philosophy） and inculcate the next generation to endure the tedium。 Strevens quotes the American biologist EO Wilson， ‘So many scientists are narrow， foolish people”， then adds “as he does not remark， that is the secret to their success”。 One of the most foolish things we hear these days is the argument we must “listen to the science”。 Anyone who says this， I believe， does not understand what science is。 Nor respect its ability or limits。 Streven’s picture of science is something akin to a goldfish that has evolved into a shark。 Science is now the apex predator when it comes to developing knowledge。 Clearly humanity needs science。 But how can we avoid the beast turning on us？ One path might be to try and better train the offspring。 To ensure that the next generation of scientists are not as profoundly ignorant of people， politics and morality as those who rule silicon valley and similar places are today。 Streven’s warns against this， rightly suggesting that to do so might fail， or if it did work， impose too high a cost on the beast’s capacity。 A better path is for the rest of society to become more responsible pet owners。 To learn how and when we must put a leash on it， how and when we should listen to it and feed it appropriately。 As this long review indicates， this is a thought provoking and engaging book。 I am still more on the side of Paul Feyerabend and Kuhn， but Streven’s has made an important contribution to how we think about how we think。 。。。more
John Shelton
，
A fantastic book well worth disagreeing with。
Craig
，
A wonderful addition for anyone interested in understanding the nature of science - what exactly is it， what makes it special， why it took so long to develop， why it has been so remarkably successful。 There's a little too much hagiography of Isaac Newton， IMHO， but otherwise a very insightful， accessible argument。 A wonderful addition for anyone interested in understanding the nature of science - what exactly is it， what makes it special， why it took so long to develop， why it has been so remarkably successful。 There's a little too much hagiography of Isaac Newton， IMHO， but otherwise a very insightful， accessible argument。 。。。more
Marco
，
3。5/5 stars。 This book presents an interesting overview of two giants of 20th Century Philosophy of Science — Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn — and of the shortcomings in their overarching views of science。 Like those two， Strevens subscribes to the idea that science is characterised by a unique method of looking at the world， but roots this method in the "iron rule": the idea that scientific arguments are not settled through the full arsenal of rationality， but only by resorting to empirical claims 3。5/5 stars。 This book presents an interesting overview of two giants of 20th Century Philosophy of Science — Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn — and of the shortcomings in their overarching views of science。 Like those two， Strevens subscribes to the idea that science is characterised by a unique method of looking at the world， but roots this method in the "iron rule": the idea that scientific arguments are not settled through the full arsenal of rationality， but only by resorting to empirical claims。 This image of science shows it as an irrational practice， since it excludes various sound arguments from consideration and pushes scientists towards ever-more-minute experiments， but explains why modern science has managed to build an incremental body of knowledge and why it did not appear at other historical junctures。I am not entirely convinced that his account provides entirely robust responses to the various studies on the relevance of non-epistemic values in science。 Also， as various other reviews pointed out， the book would have benefitted from engaging with modern examples （beyond the sketches on string theory in the final chapter）。 Nevertheless， the general contours of the "iron rule" are persuasive， highlighting both the irrationality of scientific practice and the space for democratic， yet value-free scientific practice （on that topic， see Bright's paper on Du Bois and the value-free ideal）: scientific research itself is bound by the iron rule， but science-informed public policy is the proper space for democratic debate and value definition。 This book is， therefore， a good read for those interested in the philosophy of science after Kuhn， but readers should feel comfortable to skim large sections of it， especially given how some points are frequently repeated。 。。。more
David Mihalyi
，
Strevens's book advances an argument on what made the scientific revolution possible （and why it took so long to get there）。 He dubs his hypothesis the primacy of the “iron rule of explanation”， which I interpret as a process of institution and norm building through which experimental and empirical techniques displaced other forms of reasoning。 To me， his answer didn't feel that revelatory or controversial， which is probably why I felt he over-explains his main point。 I also felt that his points Strevens's book advances an argument on what made the scientific revolution possible （and why it took so long to get there）。 He dubs his hypothesis the primacy of the “iron rule of explanation”， which I interpret as a process of institution and norm building through which experimental and empirical techniques displaced other forms of reasoning。 To me， his answer didn't feel that revelatory or controversial， which is probably why I felt he over-explains his main point。 I also felt that his points around threats to academic freedom or contemporary debates on the role of philosophy were add-ons that didn't really fit。The parts I enjoyed the most were his overviews of the philosophy， history and sociology of science， especially the discussion of Kuhn and Popper's debates。 。。。more
Steve
，
Good explanation of what science *is* and is *not* and speculations about why it developed in Europe 500 years ago and not some other place or time。 He talks about Kuhn and Popper， agrees with some of their theories and disputes others。 For a book about science it’s pretty flowery and poetic - well done but sometimes I wished he were a little more direct。
Jenny
，
Strevens is interested in the question of how modern science works， why it's effective at producing knowledge， and why it didn't arrive earlier on the world historical stage， given this effectiveness。 He sets up his argument using Popper and Kuhn to demonstrate different approaches to the question of how science works （science changes the world because the scientist， as one tasked with "killing" hypotheses， engage critical thought on the path towards truth vs the scientist operating blind to the Strevens is interested in the question of how modern science works， why it's effective at producing knowledge， and why it didn't arrive earlier on the world historical stage， given this effectiveness。 He sets up his argument using Popper and Kuhn to demonstrate different approaches to the question of how science works （science changes the world because the scientist， as one tasked with "killing" hypotheses， engage critical thought on the path towards truth vs the scientist operating blind to their corresponding paradigm until the disruptive event of scientific revolution forces revisions and move towards truth）。 Moving between Popperian and Kuhnian methodologies and relating several events from the history of science， Strevens convincingly paints science as problematized by human subjectivity and frailty--scientists， as people， ultimately make both Popper and Kuhn （and the greater debate surrounding method） insufficient。 Instead， Strevens proposes what he calls the "iron rule" operative in modern science: "the rule demanding that all scientific arguments be settled by empirical testing。" Modern science， in other words， emerges at a particular historical and geographic juncture: following the 30 Years War and the resulting incipient divisions between church and state emerges the private citizen capable of understanding knowledge/intellectual space as something divisible， something apart。 As civic and spiritual division becomes historically possible， the space is opened up for the iron rule to be seriously considered for the first time （because it demands a particular kind of divisiveness be intellectually possible within the figure of the scientist）。 In demanding that scientific discourse rely solely on empirical testing， the iron rule exhibits a central irrationality: it demands the suspension of all other forms of knowledge production， including those that have a long tradition of clear value and worth， such as philosophy， theology， various ideologies， etc。 Basically， Strevens argues that forcing science into the narrow shape of empirical evidence， and supporting that narrowness by redefining science from natural philosophy through a series of carefully cultivated public spaces （i。e。， scientific publications are those that are "sterilized" in a way that removes the personal beliefs， aesthetics， etc。 from the work of science） channels an enormous amount of energy into the production of data， and in the long run， it is this amassing of data that leads to convergence （generally accepted knowledge/facts within the scientific and then general community） with much greater efficiency than in past systems。 （Note: Strevens is clear that the scientist as a person retains all those ideologies， biases， etc。， and also that their non professional discourse can freely engage on such matters; his point however is that such engagement is clearly not the work of science and does not take place in the public discursive space of science。）Obviously I'm reducing his argument to bare bones here （the book is over 300 pages）， but this is all meant to give you an idea of what his project is。 This is *not* a history of science。 This is not even an intellectual history。 This is an argument about why modern science emerged when it did， and how it is distinct from other knowledge-making enterprises throughout history。 。。。more
Loren Picard
，
A science book that reads like literature and leaves you with a nice mental architecture to build upon。
Phil Murray
，
The subject matter of the book is excellent buts its treatment seems remarkably haphazard as well as being sadly repetitive。 He presents clear arguments on why modern science did not flourish until the seventeen century but is that the theme of the book？ Rather， his key idea must， or rather should， be that modern science （approximately） is "。。。highly effective at advancing human goods， but is not a high expression of what is humanly good。" Instead of asserting this early and then supporting with The subject matter of the book is excellent buts its treatment seems remarkably haphazard as well as being sadly repetitive。 He presents clear arguments on why modern science did not flourish until the seventeen century but is that the theme of the book？ Rather， his key idea must， or rather should， be that modern science （approximately） is "。。。highly effective at advancing human goods， but is not a high expression of what is humanly good。" Instead of asserting this early and then supporting with argument， this statement appears close to the end of the book。 His theme is to present science as able to be successful only to the extent that it does ignore all but empirical evidence， but is flawed as an activity as a result。 But he does not quite say that; rather that scientists do use all types of evidence， such as the beauty of a theory， to gather information and it is only in the formal documentation that such thoughts are excised。 So I am never quite clear what modern science is getting wrong。He takes serious issue with a Richard Dawkins tweet: "Philosophers' historic failure to anticipate Darwin is a severe indictment of philosophy"。 This seemed a reasonable point to me but he sees is as making no sense as evolution was a "scientific breakthrough"。 But surely Dawkins' point is that philosophy had a few thousand years heads start to suggest it as a possibility？It is much better than the type of book that gets some idea that can be explained in a sentence but is expanded to the length of a book for commercial reasons。 But it sometimes feels a bit like that。 One reads the what appears to have already been covered looking for some nuance but have to conclude it is the same point repeated yet again。 I would have preferred more effort devoted to the implication of his valuable insights and expansion of how science can do it better。 I note he is a philosopher of science and my ignorance on that topic may be in evidence。 He has rather missed an opportunity to educate me？ 。。。more
Herb
，
Terrific work that looks into how science came about where， when and how it did。 Fascinating from first page to last。 Advances "the iron rule" that only empirical data can truly advance scientific inquiry。 Good book。 Terrific work that looks into how science came about where， when and how it did。 Fascinating from first page to last。 Advances "the iron rule" that only empirical data can truly advance scientific inquiry。 Good book。 。。。more
Nils
，
In seinem Buch "The Knowledge Machine" will der Philosoph Michael Strevens erklären， warum die Wissenschaft so gut darin ist， die Wahrheit zu ergünden und warum es so lange gedauert hat， bis sich die Wissenschaft in ihrer heutigen， modernen Form entwickelt hat。 Er leitet dabei eine sehr plausible "eiserne Regel der Wissenschaft" her， stellt fast spielerisch die zentralen Positionen der Wissenschaftsphilosophie vor und verbindet sie zu seinem eigenen Ansatz， der die grundlgende Irrationalität der In seinem Buch "The Knowledge Machine" will der Philosoph Michael Strevens erklären， warum die Wissenschaft so gut darin ist， die Wahrheit zu ergünden und warum es so lange gedauert hat， bis sich die Wissenschaft in ihrer heutigen， modernen Form entwickelt hat。 Er leitet dabei eine sehr plausible "eiserne Regel der Wissenschaft" her， stellt fast spielerisch die zentralen Positionen der Wissenschaftsphilosophie vor und verbindet sie zu seinem eigenen Ansatz， der die grundlgende Irrationalität der Wissenschaft betont。 。。。more
Josh Yuter
，
Superb introduction to the philosophy of science and scientific epistemology
Tim
，
This is yet another attempt to explain the process of science。 Having read Popper， Kuhn， Shapin， and a plethora of others who have tried to fit science into a system， this is just the latest attempt。 Historians and philosophers of science intuit different processes after years of study。 Reading and researching creates a unique， personal understanding that no system can capture。 Science， like most human activity， can't be summarized by a system。 To attempt this is a futile exercise。 The idea that This is yet another attempt to explain the process of science。 Having read Popper， Kuhn， Shapin， and a plethora of others who have tried to fit science into a system， this is just the latest attempt。 Historians and philosophers of science intuit different processes after years of study。 Reading and researching creates a unique， personal understanding that no system can capture。 Science， like most human activity， can't be summarized by a system。 To attempt this is a futile exercise。 The idea that science needs to be saved from politicians and other subjective interests is also important but nothing new。 Strevens is an exceptional writer。 We need more clarity in the history and philosophy of science。 Therefore， this a fine book for the casual reader， but for those invested in the history and philosophy of science， any attempts to explain the creation of science should come from consistent study instead of another's interpretation。 。。。more
Adam Carter
，
What is science？ And why did it take so long to emerge？ These are super interesting questions and Strevens presents them in a clear and captivating way。 Science is a method of arguing on the basis of empirical observations but is observed by individual scientists in all their idiosyncrasies。 Science took so long because “who in their right mind would abandon philosophy， religion and aesthetic， these profound sources of knowledge， and focus on observation alone？” Only three stars because Strevens What is science？ And why did it take so long to emerge？ These are super interesting questions and Strevens presents them in a clear and captivating way。 Science is a method of arguing on the basis of empirical observations but is observed by individual scientists in all their idiosyncrasies。 Science took so long because “who in their right mind would abandon philosophy， religion and aesthetic， these profound sources of knowledge， and focus on observation alone？” Only three stars because Strevens went a bit overboard on the metaphors and I wanted him to explain more about what was so seductive about science’s method to its founders， such as Newton？ Was it a kind of challenge to explain as much as they could with as little as they could？ 。。。more
Rebekah Clarke
，