100 books like Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge

This book was a milestone in the analysis of scientific thinking and progress. Rather than following the traditional approach of focusing almost entirely on the rationality and logic of scientific advance–which was taken to be continuous in nature–Kuhn stressed the more discontinuous breaks that divided successive changes in what he described as successive “paradigm-shifts” of scientific interpretation–that is, the “revolutions” that transformed its focus and fundamental concepts. These were likened to the “gestalt shifts” (discussed by Hanson) associated with fundamentally ambiguous visual perceptions. Successive scientific paradigms, Kuhn argued, were incommensurable with one another.

This interpretation sparked somewhat of an uproar. (He addressed these concerns in the 1969 postscript in this 1970 edition.) For some commentators, this book introduced a realistic humanism into the core of science, while for others, the nobility of science was tarnished by Kuhn's introduction of an irrational element into the heart of its greatest achievements. 

Hanson’s book was received as a breath of fresh air–establishing the important distinction between what came to be called the “context of discovery” and the “context of justification.”

While the former was often relegated to the psychological phenomenon of the “aha” moment of insight, leaving the logic to the justifications of reasoning, Hanson’s treatment made philosophers of science think twice about the “intelligence” and the importance of these often spontaneous insights.        

This is a fascinating analysis of the works of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Hobbes, Gilbert, Boyle, and Newton. It not only establishes the reasons for the triumph of the modern perspective but also accounts for certain limitations in this view that continue to characterize contemporary scientific thought.

A criticism as well as a history of the change that made possible the rise of modern science, this volume is also a guide to understanding the methods and accomplishments of the great philosopher-scientists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Hume’s skeptical arguments regarding the justification of induction are taken as a point of departure, followed by a consideration of a variety of traditional and contemporary ways of dealing with this problem. 

The author then sets forth his own criteria of adequacy for interpretations of probability. Utilizing these criteria, he analyzes contemporary theories of probability, as well as the older classical and subjective interpretations.

This book explains what not to do to know the Universe, with examples from non-fiction postmodern nonsense "texts." These texts include discourses detached from experimental verification and scientific terms used completely out of context.

I love this book because I find pseudo- and postmodern science distasteful and harmful. I think it shows clearly how some famous postmodern intellectuals promote antipathy for facts, clear thinking, empirical tests, and, in general, science — our best shot at understanding the Universe. These postmodern intellectuals have huge influence and have helped spread the trend of rejection of reason and science throughout the World.

I adore this book stressing science is not an arbitrary "narration" or a collection of metaphors for postmodern essays. I share the authors’ dreams about a future after postmodernism. 

The book that made the philosophy of science relevant to everything.

Popper’s rejection of inductive reasoning had fascinating implications for politics, psychology, and (through E. H. Gombrich) art. The simple idea that perception is always predetermined by experience was not new, of course (Popper always credited his predecessors, including Xenophanes), but I find his ability to develop this theme against the contemporary vogue for empirical positivism deeply rewarding.

Popper helped to establish our modern intellectual climate with his most important lesson, adapted from Darwin: Embrace criticism. 

There are many short, accessible introductions to what current philosophers of science spend their time arguing about; this is one of the best. It wisely doesn’t cover everything, but instead uses Francis Bacon’s crucial break with the authority of Aristotle as a point of entry into current debates on half a dozen core issues such as inductive inference, progress, and realism.

This book takes what seems to be an incredibly basic feature of the world—temperature—and shows how a tremendous amount of scientific ingenuity and choices made over two centuries contributed to defining and measuring temperatures.

Showing how concepts taken for granted today emerged over time and could have been different helps reveal how little of what we know comes from direct observation. 

Once I finished reading Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, it wasn’t long before I learned that he had followed it up with a collection of deeper analyses in the realm of the philosophy of science.

His sequel book took me deeper into the minds and conflicts of noted greats of science whose scientific contributions’ acceptance is now taken for granted by most. Yet, in their own day, they, too, often had to contend with the tension of science’s and scientists’ history of preferring what consensus had ordained as settled knowledge instead of welcoming new insights and discoveries.

This science book is so joined up that its subtitle is A Unifying Vision.

The authors draw together a broad range of scientific disciplines to present a holistic view of how life emerged and, more importantly, how life is organized. You might be surprised to hear that biologists still don’t know how life organizes itself. The question is usually left to philosophers rather than biologists. So it's good to read all this material brought into one place.