Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Second Edition

An excellent read and an interesting and thorough survey of philosophy as appled to science. But I'm left disappointed by the book's evasiveness when it comes to getting into the philosophical issues relevant to specific sciences. In the chapter on realism he actually says that "different scientific fields might require very different treatments" but then fails to discuss this statement in the context of any actual scientific field. On the specific problem of quantum mechanics and its implications that there is no real world that exists "mind-independently" he says that he thinks this view is "fading in influence" but has nothing of substance to say about this issue. Throughout, the philosophical questions in science are presented through philosopher's examples. For instance, the topic of causality is presented through an example about a flagpole and its shadow. Why can't we have any discussion of some real causality examples from hard science? Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of the book. But it is called "Theory and Reality" so I think I'm reasonably entitled to expect a discussion of one or two theories, and their associated possible realities. So I'm left still looking for a decent book about science and philosophy.

科学哲学一般について歴史的・基本的なところから最近の専門的な議論まで、かなり幅広くカバーしています ぜひ邦訳してほしいなぁ

One of the best introduction to philosophy of science. This book and james ladyman understanding philosophy of science are two best books for introduction to philosophy of science.

This review will probably be most helpful to those considering using it as a kind of "textbook" in a philosophy of science course. I am a Catholic priest with a background in physics who teaches philosophy at a Catholic university. In trying to decide what book to use for my philosophy of science course, I looked at six or seven different candidates and chose this one. In choosing a book for the course, I had three desiderata: 1. I didn't want a book that made constant polemical jabs at religion. 2. I wanted a book that gave some air-time to history, particularly the scientific revolution and Hume. 3. The writing needed to be engaging and accessible to non-philosophy majors. At my university, most of the students taking a course like this (roughly 3/4) will be taking it to fulfill an upper-division requirement of the core curriculum. So most are not philosophy majors. Moreover, about 50% of my students are first-generation college students, making it all the more important to find a book that uses plain language and isn't too boring. Godfrey-Smith's book fulfills all three of my desiderata, and I'm not sure that any other book I looked at even managed to hit two of them. The book is clear and engaging. The author injects his own views as he goes along, but isn't overbearing with them. The injection of his own views is actually quite helpful in a philosophy class because it gets discussion going and keeps us focused not just on learning facts, but on asking what is true. The second half of the book is more opinionated, and I didn't assign it for that reason. However, the introduction to the philosophy of science that Godfrey-Smith provides in the first six chapter is really gold. It was always above my students' heads to some extent, but it was presented in a clear enough way that by the end of class they were understanding. I've now used it twice for teaching philosophy of science, once with the first edition and once with the second. I found the (mostly minor) changes in the second edition to be mostly helpful. Again, though I only really use the first six chapters. For me, this book filled the role I needed it for in a way that no other book I've found could have done. I'm grateful to Godfrey-Smith for writing it, and I'd highly recommend it to anyone teaching an undergraduate course in philosophy of science. (I would note that I end the semester with some philosophy of biology for which I also found Godfrey-Smith's book on that topic useful and well-written.)

Best introduction of philosophy of science currently available

I read this as an undergrad to familiarize myself with philosophy of science. I’m now using it for a course I’m teaching. It’s very readable, but still sophisticated.