Real Science: What it Is and What it Means

by John M. Ziman

Unlike most other similar books, this systematic, carefully reasoned, non-technical analysis of the nature and significance of scientific knowledge opens the way to reconciliation in the 'science wars'. By describing how academic scientists actually undertake research and communicate their findings, it shows that the philosophy, psychology and sociology of science are inextricably entwined, and that 'realism' and 'relativism' are just two sides of the same coin. The writing is well-informed, down-to-earth and lucid.

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Nonfiction

412 pages, Hardcover

First published April 26, 1996

About the author

John Michael (J.M.) Ziman

Reviews

[Brent Ranalli · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply the best and most comprehensive introduction to science studies I've seen, written in a lucid and accessible style, by an author who is extremely well-read and doesn't have any particular disciplinary or ideological axe to grind.

The book is well organized too, good as a reference. I've never encountered such an intricate system of source citation before, but it works.

[Rainier Moreno-Lacalle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ziman's book is about distinguishing real and pseudo science. With emphasis that science is a social institution run by fallible being hence the products or outcomes are expected to be fallible too. He discusses science as an unusual institution with foci on the study of the natural world. My favorite part of the book is the academic science (chapter 3) and originality and novelty (chapter 8) because it captures the essence of moving science forward. This is a great book!

[Frank Peters · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was an interesting book and filled with useful commentary. It was also a difficult book to read as the author does not write simply but seems instead to enjoy writing as a professional philosopher. I greatly appreciated how the author recognised how scientism (and other pseudo-religious centred on science) are illogical and self-refuting. The author admitted his biases and more importantly admitted that many of those biases could not be supported logically, but rather were a social construct. After finishing the book, I am not sure what to do with it, or with the many ideas that were presented by the author. I also don’t know who I might recommend the book to.