Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction
- ISBN13: 9780192802835
- Condition: NEW
- Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Product Description
What is science? Is there a real difference between science and myth? Is science objective? Can science explain everything? This Very Short Introduction provides a concise overview of the main themes of contemporary philosophy of science. Beginning with a short history of science to set the scene, Samir Okasha goes on to investigate the nature of scientific reasoning, scientific explanation, revolutions in science, and theories such as realism and anti-realism. He … More >>
Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction
Tags: Introduction, Philosophy, Science, Short, Very
February 9th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Okasha has written the best overall introduction to the philosophy of science available as of 2005.Ironically,the best chapter in the book(all of the chapters are interesting),in my opinion, chapter 2 on scientific reasoning,also contains the only significant error,a severe misconstrual of the content and operational capability of logical theories of probability,in general,and John Maynard Keynes’s logical theory of probability,in particular(See Okasha,p.38).Chapter 2 covers the extremely important comparison-contrast between induction and deduction as a preliminary to a discussion of the role each must play in scientific inference and discovery.He fits a discussion of Hume’s problem,how to justify the use of induction on logical grounds,into this chapter.He appears to overlook what the Australian logician,Shove,pointed out 25 -30 years ago.It doesn’t make sense to argue that one must supply a deductive justification for induction,which is what the socalled problem of induction is all about.The attempt to provide a deductive proof for induction is a mathematical impossibility.Such an attempt is thus a severe waste of time.Okasha’s discussions of the role that probability may play in a “justification”of induction is first rate.He covers all three of the main theories of applied probability(frequency,subjective,logical)and shows that none of the 3 offers a completely satisfactory resolution to the problem of induction.However,the next question should be”Which one offers the best,partial solution?”.Okasha not only does not deal with this question in a satisfactory manner,but commits an outright error with the following claim:”Unfortunately,most people today believe that the logical interpretation of probability faces very serious,probably insuperable,difficulties.This is because all the attempts to work out the logical interpretation of probability in any detail have run up against a host of problems,both mathematical and philosophical.As a result,many philosophers…reject outrightthe underlying assumption of the logical interpretation-that there are objective facts about the probability of one statement,given another”(Okasha,p.38).This conclusion is ,in fact,nothing other than a summary of the error filled Ramsey reviews ,published in 1922 and 1926,on Keynes’s A Treatise on Probability(1921).Ramsey came to the strange and bizarre conclusion that all probabilities,a priori and a posteriori,must be precise,exact,unique single number answers.The reason that Harold Jeffreys’,Rudolf Carnap’s,and Edwin Thompson Jaynes’s logical approaches “failed” is that they took the Ramsey critique seriously.Keynes,on the other hand,rejected the Ramsey claim outright.Keynes only accepted that Ramsey had constructed a very special,limited theory applicable only to those areas of applied probability where the calculation of unique single number answers had been demonstrated.The same holds for all frequency theories.They,like the subjectivist theories,are all special cases of the general logical theory of probability constructed by Keynes nearly a century ago.All of the so called mathematical and philosophical problems that are supposed to riddle the logical approach to probabiliity cease to exist once it is recognized that most probabilities,a priori and a posteriori,are intervals.Only the logical theory of probability can deal with and explain the paradoxes of subjective expected utility theory and the anomalies of behavioral finance.Okasha appears to have accepted the Ramsey view of Keynes without a critical and careful study of Ramsey’s claims.This is not what one would expect from a philosopher.
Rating: 4 / 5
February 9th, 2010 at 11:38 am
A reasonably good introduction, but not up to the standards of other books in the series. Somewhat amateurish and self-indulgent.
Rating: 3 / 5
February 9th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
This is an excellent short introduction to philosophy of science. It’s clearly written and very interesting. This would be an ideal first thing to read on the topic.
Rating: 5 / 5
February 9th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction by Okasha is an informative read on a few of the basics in philosophy of science. In my opinion the author does a decent job of not taking sides in the issues he presents, although I sense he struggles a bit in some places and his biases show, but this is not a weakness. It is very difficult to talk about these issues (e.g., realism, reasoning, and scientific change) without taking sides. He is sufficiently neutral to allow readers to make their own decisions. Good job.
I sensed his biases creep through when talking about the uncertainty in inductive reasoning, particularly with regard to evolution. Evolution is built on inductive evidence; it is an inductive generalization. Given that we cannot be certain when using induction, we cannot be certain of the truthfulness of evolution (i.e., common descent). I agree. But the author asserts that commonly accepted theories like gravity and relativity were also built on induction, and because we have granted them law-like status we should also grant the same law-like status to evolution. This is a sound argument, but there is a major difference between gravity and evolution that he does not mention. The former has been largely confirmed with crucial experiments, the latter (evolutionary change across life forms) has not. I am sure that the author is aware of this fact.
Okasha has a very lucid and concise writing style that I enjoyed. The book is easy to read and follow, thus beginners to the field should find it very useful. The book is also full of examples to help clarify the issues for the reader.
If I had to pick one weak spot, it would be his coverage of the modular mind in the last chapter. This discussion is presented to illustrate a philosophical issue in psychological science. All I can say as a theoretical psychologist, is “Boring!” Rather than talk about the localization of brain functions, he could have addressed more hot topic issues like agency, responsibility, applying the assumptions of the natural science model (naturalism) to humanity, and the mind-body debate.
Nevertheless, a good read, especially for beginners and those wanting a brief review of the fundamental issues.
Rating: 4 / 5
February 9th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
In my quest to broaden my understanding of the philosophy of science, I found this book to be an ideal starting point. Having now read several other books and essays on the philosophy of science, I can say that this book covers the major points well and provides a good foundation to move forward. Also, this book is available in audio format[...]. As a follow-up to this book I found Peter Godfrey-Smith’s book, Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science to be very good. As a matter of fact this book is a great companion to the audio course, Philosophy of Science, by Jeffrey Kasser available from the Teaching Company.
Also may I recommend that you read Thomas Kuhn’s classic book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions which is also available in audio format (Audible) from Amazon.
Rating: 4 / 5
February 9th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
[...] The Philosophers Chair » Blog Archive » Philosophy of Science: A … [...]
February 11th, 2010 at 9:59 am
[...] [...]
February 13th, 2010 at 12:26 am
[...] The Philosophers Chair » Blog Archive » Philosophy of Science: A … [...]
March 6th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Good read … headline catchy … good points, some of which I have learned along the way as well (humility, grace, layoff the controversial stuff). Will share with my colleagues at work as we begin blogging from a corporate perspective. Thanks!
March 30th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Houses are quite expensive and not everybody is able to buy it. Nevertheless, credit loans are invented to help people in such kind of situations.