Advertise with Googlier.com
The aim of philosophy of science is to understand what scientists did and how they did it, where history of science shows that they performed basic research very well.
This stopped me dead in my tracks. It's just so wrong, in several different ways, and it's only the first sentence. I was going to ask if anyone thought I should bother continuing, but I started skimming the rest of the book and have decided it won't be worth my effort, mostly because I'm already familiar with the ground it covers and I thought it was going to have a different focus.

But it's perhaps the first time that the first sentence of a book made me snap-to and think that perhaps I shouldn't read it. Maybe more books should have such clear warning signs. No slight intended to the author, it's just clearly a work that I should pass on.]]> http://blog.hyperjeff.net/?p=143 en-us hyperjeff@mac.com http://blog.hyperjeff.net/?p=143#comment556 Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:32:52 -0600 http://blog.hyperjeff.net/?p=143#comment556
But to get back to the main issue, the idea that philosophy of science is there to understanding what scientists did and how they did it, is just far too narrow a vision for the field. It need not even be about scientists or the nature of research at all, though that certainly characterizes several areas of study.]]> http://blog.hyperjeff.net/?p=143#comment557 Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:03:22 -0600 http://blog.hyperjeff.net/?p=143#comment557