Wikipedia entries on philosophy are uniformly bad. Unfortunately I've never read a phil sci introduction that I liked, but if you're interested here is a sampli

Wikipedia entries on philosophy are uniformly bad. Unfortunately I've never read a phil sci introduction that I liked, but if you're interested here is a sampling of notable phil sci books that occurred to me now. Note that many people who write phil sci might have professorships in other departments than philosophy and typically have an advanced degree in the science they specialize in. They just have more of an interest in speculative issues that build off already existing results or second-order questions or broadly integrative work than most practicioners, as well as at least enough background in the broader philosophical tradition to avoid basic gaffes or self-inflation resulting from narrow vision. Judea Pearl - Causality John Earman - World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute vs. Relational Theories of Space and Time James Woodward - Making Things Happen Jeff Bub - Interpreting the Quantum World Peter Godfrey-Smith - Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection Jesse Prinz - The Conscious Brain Kim Sterelny - Thought in a Hostile World And some historically important works: Carnap - The Logical Structure of the World (in a loose sense, the first attempt at an AI program) Popper - The Logic of Scientific Discovery (the philosophy of science practicing scientists now inherit and unquestionably assume) Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (a ubiquitous work on scientific practice) Readers of HN might also dig up Scott Aaronson's paper on how complexity theory might be applied to certain philosophical questions.