Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction

Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy

by Alex Rosenberg

Identifies the philosophical problems that science raises through an examination of questions about its nature, methods and justification. A valuable introduction for science and philosophy students alike.

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Nonfiction, Textbooks, Academic, Physics

224 pages, Paperback

First published August 24, 2000

About the author

Alex Rosenberg's first novel, "The Girl From Krakow," is a thriller that explores how a young woman and her lover navigate the dangerous thirties, the firestorm of war in Europe, and how they make sense of their survival. Alex's second novel, "Autumn in Oxford" is a murder mystery set in Britain in the late 1950s. It takes the reader back to the second world war in the American south and England before D-day, France during the Liberation and New York in the late '40s. It will be published by Lake Union in August.

Before he became a novelist Alex wrote a large number of books about the philosophy of science, especially about economics and biology. These books were mainly addressed to other academics. But in 2011 Alex published a book that explores the answers that science gives to the big questions of philosophy that thinking people ask themselves--questions about the nature of reality, the meaning of life, moral values, free will, the relationship of the mind to the brain, and our human future. That book, "The Atheist's Guide to Reality," was widely reviewed and was quite controversial.

When he's not writing historical novels, Alex Rosenberg is a professor of philosophy at Duke University.

Reviews

[Sherif Arafa · Rating 5 out of 5]

من اجمل الكتب التي قرأتها مؤخراً و ان كان فيه تلك الإطالة و الصعوبة التي تميز الكتب الفلسفية. الكتاب يتحدث عن النظريات الفلسفية التي تكمن خلف مناهج البحث العلمي، على اعتبار ان النظريات العلمية تعتبر بنى ميتافيزيقية اعتبارية تحاول وصف الواقع بدرجات متفاوتة من المصداقية. الكتاب مهم خصوصا لدارسي العلوم الاجتماعية لأنها ليست بنفس الدرجة من الدقة و الموضوعية التي تميز العلوم الأساسية كالرياضيات والفيزياء. الكتاب ثقيل الظل في كثير من الأحيان و يصعب فهمه في بعض الأجزاء لواحد لم يدرس الهندسة و الفيزياء، الا انه يضرب الكثير من الأمثلة عن نظريات علمية مختلفة و يتتبع الجدل الفلسفي الدائر حولها و المنطق العلمي الذي تستند عليه ( مثل البدء بشرح إشكاليات فلسفة الوضعية المنطقية ثم الحديث عن تعارض فلسفة كارل بوبر مع نظرية التطور لاعتباره ان النظرية التي لايمكن نفيها لا تعتبر علما ثم الحديث عن جدلية الاستقراء و الاستنباط...الخ). كتاب مهم لكنه صعب و يحتاج شخصا مهتما بالموضوع جداً او دارسا للفلسفة.

[بو جاسم · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب رائع جدا

لكنني استصعبته ولم أفهم بعض أفكاره ولم أعرف الربط بينها

فاطلعت على الشرح الصوتي لهذا الكتاب للباحث / عبدالله الشهري

الشرح عنوانه (مقدمات في فلسفة العلوم) متوفر على اليوتيوب لكن يبدو لي أن المقاطع مخفية فلو بحثت عنها في اليوتيوب مباشرة لن تجدها ، فتحتاج لرابط خاص ، وقد أخذته من قناة الباحث عبدالله الشهري في التليقرام

وهذا هو الرابط

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

[أحمد الحفني · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب جيد ومواضيع مهمة لكل مهتم بالإبستمولوجي عامةً وفلسفة العلم خاصةً
لكن يعيبه عدم الترتيب تماماً، تقريباً متكلم ابتداءً من مواضيع شارحها لاحقاً، أيضاً صعوبة الأمثلة اللي بتستخدم للتوضيح أصلاً!! وطبعاً الترجمة -كالعادة- في بعض الأحيان ساهمت في عدم وضوح الكتاب.
بالنسبة لي الكتاب فتح أبواب لأسئلة ووضح أهميتها أكتر من كونه أجاب عليها وده محصلة جيد.

[Richard Newton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have to admit it took me a little while to get into this book. This is not helped by the transition from the first 2 chapters, which are a relatively gentle introduction to the subject, to a fairly sudden transition to more depth. I also occasionally found the authors style irritating - but I think this is a personal thing as he writes clearly and well, and others may enjoy his style. The book is worth persevering with if you also struggle with it. The last 4 chapters are excellent, and really explain in fairly concise, but clear way, the variety of challenges that Science, and the philosophy of science have had to deal with over the past few decades. From a student perspective I found Bird's competing volume to be better, but as a general read this is more enjoyable and wider ranging than Bird.

2023 update having just finished rereading this I don’t think my review would change too much from my original one. A good wide ranging introduction but not particularly deep un any area.

[Oleg Stotsky · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was going kind of okay(it covers all important topics but in very incohesive and self-repeating manner) until I've reached the last chapter where the author goes full-blown SJW with statements like "Sociologists, and others eager to reduce the baleful influence of a blinkered,
narrow-minded, patriarchal, capitalist, and probably racialist paradigm associated especially with Newtonian science" without any justification whatsoever to obviously push his own agenda. It was my first book on philosophy of science but I'm pretty sure there are better choices out there.

[Jay Kanta · Rating 5 out of 5]

I distrusted this book starting with the first chapter, but by the second chapter was incredibly intrigued and fascinated with the depth. Rosenberg does a great way of moving the Philosophy of Science out from Popper and Kuhn's antique style of writing and brings it into a more contemporary frame, while referring heavily to those recognized as experts. I recommend this to anyone interested in any area of science, even though it is focused a bit more on psychology.

[Osama Qandeel]

أظن أن ترجمته العربية سيئة جدا

[James O'Neill · Rating 5 out of 5]

A clear and interesting introduction to philosophy of science

I used this book as introductory material for a philosophy of science module. It was perfect for highlighting the history of the philosophy of science which helped to put context and shape on the major debates, while also providing just enough information on the nature of the debates themselves to give the reader the grounding required to pursue specific articles and books the dive deeper into the subject matter. Overall, an excellent introduction and guide to the history and structure of the debates in philosophy of science.

[Karim Bazan · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب جيد جدا في فهم فلسفة العلم والمنهج العلمي و حدود العلم الزائف من وجهة نظر المؤلف و استعراض لأهم المفاهيم و القضايا الخاصة بالابستمولوجيا
الكتاب تخصي في الاساس ولاسيما ان مؤلفه هو احد اشهر فلاسفة العلوم المعاصرين وهو اليكس روزنبرج، لذا فالكتاب يغلب عليه الطابع الاكاديمي
الترجمة للاسف ليس افضل شيء ولكن الكتاب ككل جيد جدا ومهم لفهم قضايا فلسفة العلم

[Aykut Karabay · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ağır kuramsal bir dili var. Okuması zor bir kitap. Bilim felsefesine giriş yapmak istiyorsanız daha uygun kitapları araştırmanızı öneririm. Ancak belli bir alt yapınız varsa sindire sindire, zamana yayarak okumak lazım.

Kitap bilim felsefesinden, kuram, metod, yöntem,… gibi bilimin temel dinamiklerini farklı bilim felsefecileri ve teorisyenler ışığında ele alıyor.

[Abdullah · Rating 5 out of 5]

ااى

[Lulu]

Science

[Onur Bal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oturaklı bir giriş, kapsamlı bir anlatım.

[Abd El-Haleem · Rating 2 out of 5]

الكتاب مهم لكن الترجمة العربية سيئة جدا

[Ege · Rating 3 out of 5]

1)
"Sözgelimi, ilahiyet ya da metafizik okuluna ait hrhangi bir kitabı elimize aldığımızda şu soruyu soralım. Bu eser nicelik ya da sayıyla ilgili herhangi bir soyut akıl yürütmeyi içeriyor mu? Hayır. Olgularla ve varoluşla ilgili herhangi bi deneysel akıl yürütme içeriyor mu? Hayır. O zaman atın elinizdekini ateşe çünkü o, safsata ve yanılsamadan başka bir şey içermez."
- Hume

2)
1. Işık Doğrusal olarak hareket eder. (Fizik Yasası)
2. 4 Temmuz 2000 günü öğleden sonra saat 3'te Güneş bayrak direğini dikey olarak yerleştirildiği zemine 45 derecelik bir açıyla ışınlarını gönderir. (Sınır Koşul)
3. Bayrak direğinin gölgesi 50 fit uzunluğundadır.(Sınır Koşul)
4. İki açısı birbirine eşit olan üçgen ikizkenar üçgendir. (Matematiksel Doğru)
5. O halde, bayrak direğinin boyu 50 fittir.
Bu tümdengelim argüman "neden bayrak diğeri 50 fittir?" sorusunun açıklaması olmaktan uzaktır. Bu daha çok pragmatik - dilin pratik koşullarını yansıtan boyutu ile ilgili - bir meseledir.
Örneğin "Bana evet ya da hayır diye cevap ver. Köpeğini dövmeyi bıraktın mı?" sorusu bizim ancak döven kimselere sorabileceğimiz bir sorudur ve dolayısıyla dilin pragmatiğiyle ilgilidir. Eğer açıklama pragmatik bir ögeye sahip ise sunduğu beşeri bağlamı anlamadıkça başarıyla açıkladığını söyleyemeyiz. Açıklamaya mrnek vermek gerekirse, bayrak direklerinin Amerika'ya özgü olan "fit" ve "50 eyalet" kavramlarını temsil etmesi için Amerika'daki bayrakların 50 fit olması bir açıklama olabilir.
Başka bir örnek şöyle verebiliriz.
Explanans:
1. A seçim bölgesindeki seçmenlerin %80'i eğer kadın iseler annelerinin, erkek ise babalarının oy verdiği partiye oy veriyorlar. (İstatiksel Genelleme)
2. A bölgesinde yaşayan Bayan R.'nin annesi merkez-sol adaylara oy vermiştir. (Sınır Koşul)
Explanandum
3. O halde %80 olasılıkla Bayan R. merkez-sol adaylara oy vermiştir.
Fakat bu argüman tümdengelimsel değildir çünkü öncüllerin doğru olması sonucu doğru kılmaz. İstatistikel argümanlar tümdengelimsel olamazşar fakat bu da bir açıklama olamaz. Mesela istatistikel olarak geliri ayda 10 bin dolar olan kişilerin %90'ının sağ-merkez partilere oy verdiğini ve Bayan R.'nin aylık 12 bin dolar geliri olduğunu varsayarsak "Neden Bayan R. merkez-sol adaylara oy vermiştir" sorusu bizi zora sokar.

3) Aklıma gelen bir örnek
1. Ege, Ayşe'den uzundur.
2. Ayşe, Can'dan uzundur.
3. O halde Ege, Can'dan uzundur.
Şimdi biz bu tümdengelim argümanın "Ege niçin Can'dan daha uzundur?" sorusuna açıklama getirdiğini söyleyeblir miyiz? Hayır, açıklama olarak "çünkü Ege daha iyi beslenmiştir, çünkü Ege'nin ailesinin daha uzun olmasından ötürü genetik olarak uzun boya sahip olma şansı daha uzundu" gibi şeyler söyleyebiliriz.

[Ben Holloway · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first point about philosophy of science one takes away from Rosenberg's dense introduction is that it is tricky and has been since the commencement of the modern era. If the modern era is defined by its abandonment of any extra-scientific recourse such as theism, then the philosopher is left with a heavy load. According to Rosenberg, philosophers of science set out to answer questions scientists can't--how to justify scientific method, supply adequate presuppositions for the project, and prevent a slide to relativism--and then to say why it is that science itself cannot answer these questions.

Given Rosenberg's hostility towards anything resembling theism, his reticence to pronounce any case closed is admirable. In fact, Rosenberg is up front about the inability of philosophy to satisfy some of the most basic questions. On the other hand, since there are good justifications for the problems Rosenberg tackles that are from theistic perspectives it would have been good to see some.

Rosenberg is just as comfortable analyzing philosophical arguments as he is describing central scientific theories. His ability to tell a historical yarn is also excellent. But it is perhaps his zeal to get to the bottom of things that carries the reader along.

[William Cornwell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although Alex Rosenberg is one of the foremost scholars in philosophy of science today, I cannot recommend this volume. Even though it is now in its third edition, the volume is poorly written and organized. I have used this book to teach philosophy of science but would not do so again unless a new edition substantially improves upon the third edition.

[Faisal Nawab · Rating 3 out of 5]

sometimes titles could be deceiving.

[Khaled shahin · Rating 4 out of 5]

حقآ كتاب ممتع .