#215 in Reference books
Reddit mentions of What Is This Thing Called Science?
Sentiment score: 4
Reddit mentions: 4
We found 4 Reddit mentions of What Is This Thing Called Science?. Here are the top ones.
Buying options
View on Amazon.comor
- Used Book in Good Condition
Features:
Specs:
Height | 8.25 Inches |
Length | 5.5 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 0.8 Pounds |
Width | 0.75 Inches |
Maybe What is this thing called Science? I don't think it really covers the history of science in any great detail (depending on what you mean) but it is a pretty good intro to phil of science that's not too difficult to read.
As /u/as-well notes, there are a number of possible interpretations of your question.
There's a bunch of work on whether philosophical methods can get you closer to the truth in the way that science does. This section from the SEP article on Naturalism will be helpful for you in that regard.
You might also be wondering about philosophers who attempt to use "scientific" methodologies in pursuing philosophical questions. There's a whole boatload of that sort of work, from Bayesians in epistemology to certain philosophers who work on semantics to "experimental philosophy" (which is, so far as I can tell, psychology done by philosophers). I'm not sure what a good introduction to this sort of work would be, but perhaps someone else can suggest some.
It seems like a number of other commentators have read you to be looking for "philosophy of science" broadly construed. That's a giant discipline, but it mostly deals with the nature of science and various issues surrounding it. If you're interested in that, I'd suggest starting out with a textbook like those by Peter Godfrey-Smith or Alan Chalmers. Under no circumstances would I recommend beginning with famous past philosophers of science like Kuhn, Popper, Carnap, or Lakatos: their discussions are both subtle and extremely opinionated, and are therefore likely to give you a really misleading picture of the discipline.
Entrepreneur Reading List
Computer Science Grad School Reading List
Video Game Development Reading List
>If this is the agreed definition of science
This right here is the crux. There isn't one. This may be your personal view of what science is - and that's 100% okay. Your view is pretty solid, for an overarching idea.
The issue is simply that there are multiple viewpoints - with no obvious answer once you start digging in deep. Predictive power is an element (though not necessarily the "core" element) of every rational version of science I've ever seen.
What you're opening up is a debate on what actually is the nature of science... which, again, was a full semester of university to cover.
I'd highly recommend the book What Is This Thing Called Science? by Alan Chalmers. It breaks down a number of fundamental approaches to the question of how to define science, and points out benefits and issues of each of them.
Lots of things people assume about science, such as falsifiability, are not as cut and dry as you might think. It's surprisingly involved. I loved that class - I love having my mind opened up to questions, and I love being made to question things I've always believed were true.
But ultimately, my point about it being a social construct is that, until a definition of science can be made that can reasonably be fully agreed with, only then could that definition be appraised on whether or not it is a social construct.
Otherwise, the best you can say is, "My personal view of science has no component that is a social construct." Which is also fine, but doesn't say much, ultimately, unless you then explain in detail your personal view of science.