4 ms·
I agree with you that Kuhn is still worth reading, but perhaps a better intro to Philosophy of Science can be found in Laudan's "Science and Relativism". He is
by ambler0 13y ago
I agree with you that Kuhn is still worth reading, but perhaps a better intro to Philosophy of Science can be found in Laudan's "Science and Relativism". He is not dismissive of Kuhnian-style relativism, but he is critical of it and helps you see how it fits into the larger debate.
At least that's what I remember. It's been a while since college :/
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Relativism-Controversies-Philosophy-Foundations/dp/0226469492 http://www.amazon.com/Science-Relativism-Controversies-Philo...
- 001sky 13y agoAs a side dish, also perhaps enlightening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untimely_Meditations#On_the_Use_and_Abuse_of_History_for_Life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untimely_Meditations#On_the_Us...
- dnautics 13y agoI argue the best primer is Feynman's "The meaning of it all: Thoughts of a citizen-scientist" and "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out". I'm not just linkbaiting HN's love for Feynman: Feynman was an active, practicing scientist and besides being introspective, he had a great knack for explaining things in a perspective accessible to non-scientists. Kuhn is worth reading, though if you are a scientist and want to get a more-in-depth analysis of philosophy of science that is laid out formally.