Bilimin Anlamı

Pelican Books #9

by Tim Lewens, Kerem Kaynar (Translator)

Kara deliklerin var olup olmadığından saçlarımızın neden uzadığına kadar akla gelebilecek neredeyse her soruya açıklamalar getiren bilimin başarılı olup olmadığı ya da insanlığa ne denli yararlı olabildiği söz konusu olduğunda, bu sorulara nasıl yanıt vermek, hangi yolu izlemek gerekir? Bu noktada, Bilimin Anlamı bilim felsefesini işaret ediyor.

Tim Lewens, başlıca bilim felsefecileri Karl Popper ve Thomas Kuhn’un teorilerinden yola çıkarak, bilimi, bilim felsefesinin büyüteci altında inceliyor, bilimdeki etik ve ahlâki sorunların izini sürüyor. İnsanların karar alma mekanizmalarından, bilimin gerçeklerine ve mitlerine; siyasi tartışmalardan, bilimsel incelemelerdeki önyargılara kadar uzanan geniş bir yelpazede bilim felsefesinin yadsınamaz rolünü tartışıyor.

Genres: Science, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Academic, Popular Science, Biology

256 pages, Paperback

First published August 27, 2015

Reviews

[Brian Clegg · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's traditional for scientists to get the hump about philosophy of science. As Tim Lewens, Professor of the Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge points out, the great Richard Feynman was highly dismissive of the topic. But most of us involved in science writing do recognise its importance, and I was very much looking forward to this book. I'll get the reason it doesn't get five stars out of the way first.

This is because the book misses out a whole chunk of philosophy of science in favour of dedicating the second half to 'what science means for us', which primarily seems to be more a summary of some areas of soft science rather than true philosophy. We have some great material in the first half on what science is and on the work of the terrible twins Popper and Kuhn (of whom more in the moment), but I was left wanting so much more. What came after Kuhn (whose work is 50 years old)? We only get a few passing comments. There is nothing about peer review. Nothing about fraud in science. Nothing about the relationship of maths and science - in fact there was so much more philosophising I would have loved to have read about.

What there was proved excellent. I was vaguely familiar with the two big names in the philosophy of science, but only at a headline level. I knew, for instance, that Karl Popper's ideas, while still widely supported by scientists, are frowned on by many in philosophy of science - but I didn't know why. In a nutshell it's because Popper took things too far, not just talking about scientific theories being falsifiable, which most find acceptable, but going on to the say the process of inductive reasoning, so important to science, isn't valid - which no scientist can honestly find acceptable.

Similarly, while I had got a vague idea of Thomas Kuhn and his paradigm shifts, like everyone else except philosophers I wasn't really sure what a paradigm was - apparently Kuhn used the term as a kind of definitive exemplar driven change rather than a traditional revolution. I also wasn't aware of Kuhn's rather nutty ideas that taking a new scientific view didn't just change the view, but changed the actual universe. Really.

There were still points I'd disagree with. Lewens dismisses Popper entirely because of his anti-induction views, but doesn't say what's wrong with the apparently very sensible Popper Lite approach, with appropriate recognition that one experiment doesn't make a falsification isn't acceptable. Similarly but in the opposite vein, he gives in far too easily to Kuhn's idea on changing the universe, taking the example of the subjective nature of colour as showing that the way we look at things truly does alter reality. Well, no it doesn't. A flower is giving off exactly the same photons however you look at it - it's the interpretation that changes, not the universe itself. But I don't mind this - argument is the whole point of philosophy and why it's far more fun than the grumps like Stephen Hawking who claim we don't need it any more seem to realise.

So an excellent start first half to a book that I think all scientists and those with a true interest in science should read. But I just wish that second half had filled in those missing bits rather than trying to be a mini-popular science book with a touch of philosophical justification in its own right.

[Kin · Rating 3 out of 5]

ไม่ค่อยสนุกเลย แต่บางประเด็นก็ดีมาก โดยเฉพาะบทแรกๆ ว่าด้วยพอพเพอร์และคูนห์ น่าจะช่วยปูพื้นให้คนที่สนใจปรัชญาวิทยาศาสตร์ได้ดีเลย

[Jay Green · Rating 3 out of 5]

A pretty reasonable introduction to the philosophy of science and one or two interesting case studies, so I learned a few new facts and fun anecdotes. Would do very well for a beginner but could not stand alone as a comprehensive overview.

[Venky · Rating 2 out of 5]

In the introduction to his book, Tim Lewens provides a warming assurance to the reader that a knowledge of neither Science nor Philosophy is a pre-requisite for grasping the nuances contained within "The Meaning of Science". However such an assurance is reneged upon in the very first Chapter when the author proceeds to provide a complicated overview of concepts such as Inference Induction, corroboration and falsificationism as elegantly elucidated by one of the greatest philosophers of all time - Karl Popper.

There is no denying or disputing the fact that "The Meaning of Science" is a provocative book that elicits a healthy amount of debate, deliberation and even skepticism. It challenges the very notion of Science as the fount of universal truth and attempts to pry open the lacunae and loopholes plaguing Science. Most importantly the book propounds the invaluable role played by Philosophy in supplementing and supplanting the contributions made by Science. Science and Philosophy are indispensable companions although seemingly incompatible bedfellows. In the course of reconciling these two divergent yet intersecting disciplines, Lewens asks the following thought inducing questions:

Does Economics have adequate credibility to position itself as a Science?
Is Intelligent Design's claim to be a field of Science valid?
Is Homeopathy Science or a pseudoscience mired in quackery?

The aforementioned questions are proposed to be tackled using a variety of techniques such as the ones employed by the controversial philosopher Kuhn who pioneered the 'Paradigm Paradigm' concept which talks about scientific revolutions which displace long entrenched beliefs (termed exemplars). Thus Newton's laws of gravity which were not only held sacrosanct but also enabled placing the first Man on the Moon were shaken, if not displaced by Einstein's laws of general and special relativity. Similarly there have been innovative and ingenious challenges posed to Charles Darwin's revolutionary theory of mutation by natural selection.

Lewens also touches upon the aspects of Capitalism and Altruism in his endeavour to find a bridge between Science and Philosophy. On the whole while the "Meaning of Science" strives to illuminate the importance of cleaving Science and Philosophy, its sometimes abstract and at other times obscure language leaves the reader more confused than enlightened.

[Davidcharlesbowmangmail.com · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an enjoyably old-fashioned kind of book that wanders with agreeable authority over eclectic topics in both the sciences and in philosophy, these topics being linked by their considerable importance and continued interest. Much of the first half deals with Popper and Kuhn, and dispenses with both, although not very convincingly. In rejecting Popper, Lewens sees inconsistency or even irrationality in expecting Einstein's Relativity to hold up in the face of the recent (but later rejected) San Grasso experiments with neutrinos. If Relativity is a better explanation than the alternative proposals, there is nothing illogical about expecting there to have been an experimental error. Lewens also criticises Popper for rejecting inductivism, but provides nothing more than psychological support for it.

The second half explores some fascinating questions about altruism and free will, dealing fiercely with those who reject the latter on grounds of deterministic neuroscience; but in doing so Lewens states, "If the concept of free will is literally without meaning, then it makes no more sense to deny we have it that to assert we have it." I wonder if he reflected more than once on this claim. How can we have something that is without meaning?

Despite these flaws (and perhaps they're not: maybe someone can enlighten me), I recommend this is a lively, intelligent and provocative read.

[Sharad Pandian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good introduction to the Philosophy of Science, one I particularly like because Lewens seems to share my distate for metaphysical work that's too far upstream from actual scientific work. This means there's thankfully little about (say) the nature of laws or causation. Instead he sticks to a critical exposition of some key debates in general philosophy of science (pseudoscience, demarcation, Popper-Kuhn, realism, the role of values) and well as some important debates in the philosophy of biology, his own speciality (altruism, human nature, free will).

He isn't producing a neutral account - his expositions are highly opinionated, and it doesn't hurt that he seems to share my basic view of most things. With many apt examples from science and its history, useful conceptual distinctions, and an impressive overview of issues *actually useful* for someone who wants to understand how philosophers understand the working of science, this is certainly one of the better ways to introduce the field.

[Giulia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Perhaps I am biased because I never took a shining to philosophy - too much thinking about irrelevant things - but I thought it was important to school myself in the meaning of science seeing as it is my career. However, I am not sure this is a great starter guide to the meaning of science. It's short and sharply written so perhaps that's how one could fool themselves into thinking it is, but I don't think it is comprehensive or written at the right level. I wish I could have understood an overarching theme or syllabus to this instead of the many small chapters. For those who are new to philosophy as well, it felt like a lot of taking us down the garden path to then turn back and tell us - no, that thinker wasn't right at all. It was a jarring experience, but the second half was much more interesting. I'm just not sure these topics were what I thought were relevant to the title of this book.

[Pete Harris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pelican books have a wonderful if now not terribly well known place in this country's cultural history. They hark back to a time when popular culture didn't seem to be constantly chasing the lowest common denominator, but where there was a place for intellectual optimism, for a Reithian spirit of self improvement.

The Meaning of Science follows the relaunch of Pelican books in 2014 and its retro light blue cover brings strong memories of parental bookcases.

The content of the book is a cut above much of what is now published as popular science. This is a book which rewards a quiet environment, and full concentration.

It falls into two parts, the first rigorously examining what science is, the second looking at the overlap between science and philosophy

The first two chapters introduce two great scientific philosophers. Popper, who questioned whether science could prove anything (it could only postulate and disprove theories), and Kuhn who cast doubt on whether science advances at all, or is simply a series of revolutions or paradigm shifts, each of which eradicates what came before. These chapters illustrate the beauty and power of the scientific method. Not only does good science inherently involve challenge, but here we have the same thing happening at a meta level, challenging the scientific method itself. Science is something which can be trusted because it doesn't trust itself. Along the way author Lewens also examines Poppers attempts to distinguish between science and pseudo-science, and also shines the light on some of the keys flaws in "intelligent design".

From here, the book goes on to discuss whether science can make a claim to truth, and also the relationship between science and society. The latter examines the balance, the dilemma science faces where massively socially beneficial results have been generated, but not yet completely rigorously verified. When to publish?

I found the second half slightly less satisfying than the first, simply because it seems less in tune with the title. The first part is a philosophical analysis of the soundness of science. The second is more about whether scientific experimentation can help to resolve such philosophical questions as, "is there such a thing as human nature?", "do we genuinely have free will", and "what place for altruism in a world driven by natural selection?". These are all interesting topics in their own right, but I perhaps would've preferred to see the first section expanded further.

I didn't always find Lewens' arguments convincing. He concludes that the case for free will is "not proven" but clearly favours its existence. He does not however make a persuasive case for his preference. Also, in discussing the response to fallout from Chernobyl in Cumbria he suggests that science is inadequate without local knowledge, when, to me it could be argued more simply, the scientists in question were guilty of insufficient rigour. The fault was with the scientists, not the science. That does nod towards another issue , what is science, is it what scientists do?

The fact that I found myself questioning and disagreeing with the author is not a criticism, rather it is an illustration of the beauty of an intellectually stimulating work.

One rather strange omission from the book is the lack of any mention of mathematics. In a work which discusses the ability of science to prove anything about reality, the absence of the most powerful tool in the scientist's kitbag is odd to say the least. Furthermore, in the final chapter Lewens addresses the question of what is and isn't provable by science, but to do so with no mention of Kurt Godel feels incomplete.

Overall however, this is a genuinely excellent book.

[Hamid · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book about philosophy of science. But why do we need to study philosophy of science? Many important question about a discipline, such as nature of its concepts and its relation to other disciplines, are philosophical in nature. Philosophy of science, for example, is needed to supplement the understanding of the natural and social sciences that derives from scientific work itself. Philosophy studies every subject matter that the sciences also study, but it does this with different aims and methods. Philosophy can also turn us into good critical thinkers.

[Anand Gopal · Rating 4 out of 5]

A friendly introduction to the philosophy of science, dealing with Popper and Kuhn, human nature, free will, and the realism/anti-realism debate. (Lewens himself defends a version of scientific realism). The book is lucid and accessible and serves as an excellent introduction. I would have liked more space for thinkers like Feyerabend and Lakatos, but otherwise a fair overview of the subject.

[Busrauyarimsi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bu kitap üzerine kaleme aldığım yazı 01.07.2019 tarihinde Hürriyet.com.tr'de yayınlanmıştır: https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/kitap-san...

BİLİMİN ANLAMI ÜZERİNE HİÇ DÜŞÜNDÜNÜZ MÜ?

21’inci yüzyılda bilim, artık yargılamadığımız, hatta hayran olduğumuz bir gerçek olarak hayatımıza nüfuz etmiş durumda. Kültür üretiminin, özellikle sinema-televizyon sektöründe ve çizgi romanlarda bilim ekseninde şekillenmesi, bilimin hayranlık duyulan bir alan olmasını da destekliyor. Ancak bu hayranlık çoğu zaman kafa karıştırıcı hale de gelebiliyor.

Bilimin sınırlandırılamıyor, kimi zaman adlandırılamıyor oluşu, şüphesiz ki bu kafa karışıklığının en büyük sebebi. Bu köklü alanın yüzlerce dalından herhangi birine hâkim olabilmek çok ciddi bir emek ve özveri gerektiriyor. Evrenin her zerresini oluşturan ve ona hitap eden bilimin, sorgulanamaya gerek duyulmayan bir tüketim unsuru haline getirilmesi de işleri kolaylaştırmıyor. Oysa bilimin temellerini, çok basitçe de olsa zihinde oturtabilmek, kişinin hayatının her alanına etki edecek çok önemli bir atılım.

İletişim Yayınları’ndan çıkan, Tim Lewens imzalı ‘Bilimin Anlamı’ bu atılımın öncüsü olabilecek, son derece yapıcı ve eğlenceli bir çalışma olarak okurla buluşuyor. Bilimin kafa karıştırıcı ve zorlayıcı yapısını olabildiğince yumuşatan çalışma, samimi sorular ve örneklerle adeta atılması gereken adımları okurun yerine atıyor. İki ana bölümden oluşan ‘Bilimin Anlamı’, ‘Bilim Dediğimizde Ne Demek İsteriz’ olarak adlandırılan ilk bölümünde, bilim felsefesinin temellerini atarak işe başlıyor. Bilim felsefesinin birçok insanı ‘ürküttüğü’ ve daha yolun en başında ‘anlaşılmaz’ kabul edilerek ötelendiği bir gerçek. Oysa Tim Lewens’in başarılı ve samimi anlatımı, okurun bilim felsefesiyle tüm önyargılardan uzak bir şekilde tanışmasına vesile oluyor. Karl Popper ve Thomas Kuhn gibi iki önemli ismin bilime getirdikleri bakış açılarını karşılaştıran Lewens, aynı zamanda okurun, Darwin gibi ikonlaşmış bilim insanlarını da bambaşka bir perspektifle irdelemesini sağlıyor.

‘Bilim Bizim İçin Ne Anlama Gelir’ adlı ikinci bölüm ise ilk bölüme kıyasla daha eğlenceli ve ilgi çekici... ‘Değer ve Hakikat’, ‘Özgürlük Yok Mu Oluyor’ gibi hayret uyandıran sekiz alt bölümden oluşan bu kısım, bilimin hayatın hemen her alanında nasıl vuku bulabildiğini gözler önüne seriyor. Aynı zamanda bilimin kimi zaman nasıl ideolojik bir propaganda aracı haline geldiği, bencilliğin ve özgeciliğin bilimde nasıl taraf tuttuğu gibi birçok ilginç konu da yine bu bölümde masaya yatırılıyor.

‘Bilimin Anlamı’nın belki de en önemli özelliği, okurda bilimin ‘ne’ olduğuna dair bir fikir oluşturması. Hayattaki her komplike örüntünün bilim kabul edilmemesi, kimi zaman da çok basit olan şeylerin bilimin en köklü dalını oluşturması, şüphesiz ki idrak etmesi zor olan şeyler. Tim Lewens bu noktada tüm bunların zorluğunun farkında olan bir bilinçle okura hitap ediyor. Yapıcı bir temel oluşturmaya çalışırken okuruna karşı asla ‘tepeden bakan’ bir tavır sergilemiyor. Aksine okurunun donanımsızlığını büyük bir içtenlikle bağrına basıyor bile denebilir: “Bu kitap-bilim felsefesine bir giriş-bilimsel işleyişin genel önemi hakkında bir dizi soru sormak için, bilimlerin özel kazanımlarından uzak duracak. Bu kitap bilim dediğimizde ne demek istediğimizle ve bizim için bilimin anlamıyla ilgilenen herkes için. Bilimsel bilgi birikiminiz olması veya felsefeyle aşina olmanız gerekmiyor.''

İletişim Yayınları’ndan çıkan ‘Bilimin Anlamı’ meraklı her okurun kitaplığında bulunması gereken değerli bir çalışma. Bilimin ürkütücü profilini olabildiğince yumuşatan ve renkli hale getiren kitap, aynı zamanda ileri okuma listeleriyle okur için bir rota da oluşturuyor. Ama her şeyden önemlisi ‘Bilimin Anlamı’ okuruna anlamak ve anlamlandırmak adına, sonsuz bir güvenle, büyük bir sorumluluk veriyor: “Her ne kadar bilim bize önemli olan çoğu şeyi söylese de dünyamızı anlamak, iyi yaşamak ve akıllı kararlar almak için neye ihtiyacımız olduğunu asla söylemeyecektir.”

[Yejin Kim · Rating 3 out of 5]

과학사의 구조

「'과학'한다, 고로 '철학'한다」. 이 책은 단순히 과학과 철학, 이 두 단어에 이끌려 펼치게 된 책이다. 내가 좋아하는 두 학문이자 평소 동떨어졌다고 생각해 온 두 학문의 결합이 나를 잡아당겼다.

'과학이란 무엇인가?' 책은 시작부터 무겁고도 철학적인 질문을 내게 던졌다. 저자가 생각하는 답을 읽기 전, 나는 '증명할 수 있는 것'이라는 나름의 답을 내봤다. 증명은 무엇인지, 아인슈타인의 사고실험이나 귀납도 증명이라고 할 수 있는지 등에 대한 의문이 남아있었지만 나에게는 최선의 답이었다. 칼 포퍼는 반증주의적 관점에서 과학을 추정과 반박의 과정으로 정의했다. 그의 논리는 처음에는 꽤 설득력있게 들렸지만 이를 따라갈 수록 귀납법 자체를 부정하는 극단적인 견해로 바뀌었다. 그렇다면 경제학이나 지적 설계 이론, 혹은 동종요법 또한 과학이라고 인정해주어야 할까? 이 질문에 대해 답을 하는 과정에서 과학과 비과학을 구분하는 척도를 한 가지고 단정하지 말아야 한다는 것을 알게 되었다. 외에도 과학은 우리에게 세계를 진실하게 드러내는지 혹은 실용적인 가치만을 중요시하여 실제와 상당히 다른 것을 붕여주는지에 대한 질문, 과학은 우리에게 어떤 의미가 있는가에 대한 질문이 있었고 이에 대한 논의가 있었다.

과학의 역사에 대한 여러가지 관점도 있었다. 관련된 장을 펼쳤더니, 토마스 쿤의 「과학 혁명의 구조」라는 익숙한 책이 보였다. 지금으로부터 몇 년 전, 제목에 이끌려 읽으려 했지만 내용이 내겐 너무 어려웠던 나머지 덮고 말았던 책이었다. 이 책에서 간단하게나마 소개된 「과학 혁명의 구조」의 내용은 이름만큼이나 흥미로웠다. 과학사는 긴 정상 과학 기간 중간중간에 격렬한 개념적 혁명의 반복이라는 것이다. 혁명이라고 하니 당장 떠올랐던 것은 아인슈타인의 상대성 이론이었다. 마침 따로 공부하고 있던 것이기도 했다. 뉴턴의 역학과 맥스웰의 전자기학. 두 '참'인 이론 사이에 모순점이 발생하자 '시간과 공간의 절대 불변성'이라는 고전물리학의 기초를 뒤엎어버린 아인슈타인의 상대성 이론은 분명 '혁명'이었다. 쿤은 이어서 예전의 본보기는 혁명 후 완전히 폐기되어야 한다고 말한다. 사람들이 뉴턴의「프린키피아」가 우주를 정확하게 설명한다고 생각하지 않는다는 점에서 뉴턴의 역학은 폐기되었다고 할 수 있다. 하지만 고등 교육과정에서 우리는 여전히 역학을 공부하고, 또 계속해서 재해석되고 있다는 측면에서 역학은 완전히 폐기되었다고 볼 수 없다.

그렇게 생각하자면 과학사는 나선형이 아닐까? 새로운 과학적 패러다임은 기존의 패러다임에 분명 토대를 두고 있으면서도-완전히 폐기되었다고 볼 수 없으면서도- 한 편으론 완전한 혁명이기-폐기되었다고 불 수도 있기- 때문이다.

책이 논하고 있는 것이 옳은가, 그른가는 차치하고서라도, 책의 주제 자체로 내게 시사하는 바가 컸다. 과학은 과학, 인문학은 인문학. 알게 모르게 두 학문에 선을 그어놓고 있었던 내게 과학과 역사가, 과학과 인문학이, 과학과 철학이 이처럼 자연스럽게 섞여 또 다른 분야를 형성할 수 있다는 것은 신선한 충격으로 다가왔다. 얼마 전 가볍게 읽어 본 정재승 작가의 「과학 콘서트」도 과학에 인문학, 심리학, 사회학, 경제학, 의학을 버무려 재미있게 이야기를 풀어나갔는데 과학과 철학이 만나니 또 색다르다. -다 읽지는 못했지만-과학적 관점에서 세계사를 풀어나간 제레드 다이아몬드의 「총, 균, 쇠」도 재밌게 봤는데, 앞으로 과학과 인문학 간의 교류가 더 활발하게 일어나기를 바래본다.

[Minh Nguyen · Rating 4 out of 5]

What is science and what is pseudoscience? Is economics considered as science? Philosophy of science is to answer those questions. This book is a nice introduction to Philosophy of science. The first part about Popper and Kuhn was great with many interesting stories of the most influential philosophers in their era. It reminded me about my first presentation at the seminar at graduate school. It was about Kuhn and his paradigm shift theory.

The second part about “what science means to us” was so-so. I learnt some interesting perspectives about human nature, altruism and free will. But I expected Lewens to cover more about philosophy of science such as the Bayesian approach and the new experimentalism and so on.

From my point of view, the criticism of Popper on inductive reasoning was a little bit disappointing. Inductive reasoning itself is a legit approach that many scientists today still use. I have done many meta-analyses on brand lift, sales lift, creative performance in marketing. I think the point is that inductive reasoning always involves uncertainty due to limited observations. So the hypothesis which was generated from the meta-analysis is not 100% applicable to any specific case without experiments.

I would give this book a 3.5 star rating. If you want to learn more about philosophy of science, the book “What is This Thing Called Science” by A F Chalmers is a good option. It is the book that I read and delivered the first presentation at the graduate school. Time flies!

[Halley · Rating 2 out of 5]

เป็นหนังสือที่อ่านยากในหลายๆ มิติ
ทั้งยากในแง่ของตัวเนื้อหาปรัชญาเองอยู่แล้วที่เราไม่ค่อยได้เรียน ได้เจอ ได้ฝึกคิดกันมาก่อน
ยากในแง่ของสำนวน เข้าใจดีว่ามันเป็นการแปลที่ต้องค่อนข้างคงเนื้อหาให้ได้ตามเดิม แล้วของเดิมมันก็ไม่ได้เขียนมาเพื่อทำให้คนเข้าใจง่ายๆ ก็เลยเต็มไปด้วยศัพท์ยากๆ ส่วนขยายยืดยาว แล้วการเชื่อมไปแต่ละส่วนที่ไม่ค่อยเนียนเท่าไหร่ พอมาเป็นภาษาไทยที่ไม่มี prefix/suffix เหมือนฝรั่ง ศัพท์แสงก็เลยยิ่งยืดยาวมากขึ้นกว่าเดิม อยากให้เพิ่มการอธิบายหลักปรัชญาสำคัญๆ ในเล่มในแบบที่คนไทยจะเข้าใจ อาจจะโดยผู้แปลหรือหาคนมาเขียนเพิ่มเติมก็ได้
ยากในเชิงการเล่าเรื่องโดยรวมตลอดทั้งเล่ม คือส่วนแรกอะโอเค ปูพื้นมาดี แต่ส่วนหลังนี่คืออะไร อ่านช่วงแรกของครึ่งแล้วงงมากว่าคนเขียนต้องการจะสื่ออะไร จะพาเราไปไหน ทำไมอยู่ดีๆ โผล่มาอภิปรายเรื่อง Altriuism กับ Free-will ซึ่งเอาจริงก็สนุกดีเพราะเราเรียนชีววิทยากับประสาทวิทยาศาสตร์มา แต่กับคนสายอื่นๆ นี่ไม่แน่ใจว่าจะเข้าใจมั้ย หรือสนุกไปกับเรามั้ย กว่าจะมาเข้าใจก็คือบทท้ายสุดที่มาขมวดปมว่าสองบทก่อนหน้านี้คืออะไร คิดว่าถ้าวางพล็อตใหม่ให้น่าติดตามมากขึ้นน่าจะดีกว่านี้
ไปอ่านรีวิวของฝรั่งมาละเห็นด้วยตรงที่น่าจะอธิบายหลักการอย่างอื่นเพิ่มเติมด้วย เช่นการทดสอบสมมติฐาน การลอกเลียนผลงาน

สรุปว่าคิดว่าไม่ต้องอ่านก็ได้ ไม่น่าทำให้เข้าใจหลักคิดหรือหลักการของนักวิทยาศาสตร์มากขึ้นไปจากเดิมเท่าไหร่

[Francisco · Rating 3 out of 5]

A pretty good introductory work on the philosophy of science and how it has been through about in contemporary times, the limits of science and the possibilities of it, Tim Lewens covers the classic definers of what science is, starting with Karl Popper, moving to Thomas Kuhn and so on, with an overview of contemporary thought on the meaning of science.

Tim Lewens has a bit of a narrow conception of science here, this isn't really covering social sciences for example, it's pretty much science and conceived from the point of view of STEM. But then it might be understandable as widening the net might really derail what he is attempting to achieve here.

He does give some practical examples on why "sciences" such as Economics or Homeopathy don't really fit the conception of science he is using throughout and he does seem to have a sympathy for scientific realism. He does end up making a good case about why philosophy, so often dismissed by people in STEM fields, can actually have relevant contributions to make to the fields and how to conceive them.

[Book Grocer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Purchase The Meaning of Science here for just $12!

What is science? What does it mean for us? Scientific knowledge or familiarity with philosophy is not a prerequisite for the curious reader who is interested in exploring these questions. This is an engaging and easy-to-read introduction to the philosophy of science, including concepts and ideas such as induction, realism, science vs. pseudo-science, free will, human kindness and other social constructs. Chapters end with suggested further reading. A stimulating read.

Paul - The Book Grocer

[Danielle T · Rating 3 out of 5]

As the title said, an introduction to philosophy of science- what is science, why does it matter, does it matter how we do it?

Later chapters do recall some concepts introduced earlier, but each chapter can be taken as its own philosophical essay complete with suggested further reading at the end of each. I personally found it to be a little slow in the middle, but definitely an interesting read. Science philosophy really should be discussed more frequently among scientists, but maybe as like a survey seminar during graduate school.

[Arm Patsawut · Rating 4 out of 5]

เป็นหนังสือที่มีความรู้สึกผสมปนเปพอสมควร เพราะประกอบไปด้วยส่วนที่อ่านง่ายและเต็มไปด้วยตัวอย่างและเคสที่น่าสนใจ ทำให้หนังสือมีกลิ่นเหมือนหนังสือเรื่อง Justice ของ Michael J. Sandel's แต่เปลี่ยนจากปรัชญาการเมืองที่พูดความยุติธรรม ไปเป็นปรัชญาวิทยาศาสตร์ ที่พูดเรื่องความจริง และ ความรู้แทน

แต่ถึงแม้จะมีส่วนที่อ่านง่ายและอ่านสนุก แต่ก็มีส่วนที่อ่านยากมากๆอยู่ด้วย เป็นส่วนที่เป็นปรัชญาเข้มมากๆเลยที่เดียว ขอให้ผู้อ่านเตรียมความพร้อมของการนั่งรถไฟเหาะทางความรู้ได้เลย

โดยรวมเป็นหนังสือที่ดีที่จะพาเราไปรู้จักกับพรมแดนทางความรู้ใหม่ๆ ที่ไม่ค่อยมีใครพูดถึงเท่าไรนัก เปิดโลกได้ดีที่เดียว

[Eirik Engene · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good introduction to the philosophy of science. While it doesnt suffer from the same dry style often found in these kind of introductory philosophy books, it isnt extraordinary either. The concepts are clear, while working the concepts and ideas into a narrative which one could more easily digest. This book is very relevant if you are in any discipline which is based in science and empirical investigation. It also brings up certain aspects which are often neglected, like the problem of induction (Hume, Popper), and the fact of paradigm shifts (Kuhn) in the scientific domain.

[Justin Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this. It's not really about the philosophy of science--rather, it's about philosophy of science for ordinary people. You get the bit names (Popper, Kuhn), and the big issues, but then you get case studies, in which Lewens shows us how to think about scientific controversies and ideas, rather than abstractly asking 'what is science?', which is perhaps a fool's errand. I'm obliged to get grumpy about the last chapter, which takes 'scientific' experimental 'disproof' of free will far too seriously. You can't disprove it. Can't prove it either. Somewhere, Kant weeps.

[James Bartlett · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent introduction to a number of philosophical issues with science. It starts with a discussion on the philosophy behind the process of science and extends into issues facing science such as determinism. The writing style is wonderful throughout and uses some interesting examples to explain each concept.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book about the philosophy of science is a light little read that is jargon-free but examines a lot of the most abiding questions about science. Lewens is more of a science cheerleader than I can usually tolerate, but he has very smart and skeptical things to say about free will than the average science fan.

[Nutdanai Adjneeyakul · Rating 4 out of 5]

โดยมุมมองของผมแล้ว นี้คือหนังสือที่นำเสนอถึงการที่ “วิทยาศาสตร์” ย้อนกลับมาพิจารณา “ความเป็นวิทยาศาสตร์”ในตัวมันเอง ถ้าเทียบให้เข้าใจได้ง่ายยิ่งขึ้นก็คงเหมือนกับการที่ “มนุษย์คนหนึ่งย้อนกลับมาพินิจพิจารณาตัวเอง เพื่อทำความรู้จักกับตนเอง”

[Paul Winkeler · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not a philosopher by any means but this book did seem like a good introduction to how philosophers think about science. I might perhaps call it a meta-science book more than a philosophy book. But then, what do I know?

[Hind · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lovely and thought provoking introduction to a field I know nothing about. It offers plenty of suggestions for further reading which I think are quite useful.

[Pedro H Reis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great introductory text for those who really value the science of ours...

[Joaquin Gana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un buen acercamiento a esa cosa llamada Ciencia. Qué es, por qué importa, es esto ciencia? con qué se come? Respuestas de sobras y muchos temas abordados. Montonazo de referencias.

[Lluna · Rating 3 out of 5]

de quan volia filosofar des de la ciència (dos coma cinc)

[Luc Castelein · Rating 1 out of 5]

The worst book that has ever been written on the subject. The author absolutely doesn't have a clue...

[Dhruv Goel · Rating 5 out of 5]

When you have been brought up seeped in the subjects of science and maths, you might miss the subtle nature of knowledge. All the time that we are reading about electromagnetism, atoms, and mammals, we rarely ask the question on boundaries, on classification, and on the nature of knowledge being generated by the laboratory experiments. This book bridges that gap and guides you through the philosophy of scientific knowledge generation.

While the language used in book is unlike the esoteric description of common philosophical treatises, it is still not that easy to read. One may even understand, after reading it, that logical arguments cannot be made using simple everyday language. The author has made an interesting review of the literature on this subject. In addition, the book feels as objective as it can be, with every assertion defended by carefully worded arguments. For anyone, who wants to understand the boundary which separates science from non-science, needs to start from this book.