Worldviews - An Introduction to the History & Philosophy of Science (04) by DeWitt, Richard [Paperback (2004)]

by Dewit

Excellent Book

Genres: Philosophy, Science, History, Nonfiction, History Of Science, Physics

Paperback

First published February 6, 2004

Reviews

[Hadi Bayat · Rating 5 out of 5]

به طور خلاصه باید گفت مگر یک نویسنده چقدر میتواند جذاب و دقیق و روشن کتاب بنویسد. دویت نمونه اعلایی از نگارش آموزشی و دانشگاهی را ارایه کرده است و با خواندن این کتاب تازه میفهمیم میشود کتابی در حوزه‌های سخت نوشت که در عین دقت، روشن و واضح و حتی کمی طنزآلود و در نتیجه جذاب باشد. دست مریزاد آقای دویت. یک کتاب نوشته‌ای و این همه فایده و اساتید دیگر ده‌ها کتاب نوشته اند دریغ از انکه یکی از آن ده‌ها ارزش وقت تلف کردن داشته باشد.
برای آشنایی مفهومی با طبیعت شناسی ارسطویی- بطلمیوسی و نیز تغییرات آن تا طبیعت شناسی نیوتنی و مشکلات آن تا فیزیک نسبیت و نظریه کوانتوم و نیز نظریه تکامل بسیار مفید است.
از ترجمه دقیق و خوشخوان کتاب هم که نباید گذشت.
کتاب با عنوان جهانبینی‌ها(درآمدی بر تاریخ و فلسفه علم) توسط انتشارات ققنوس منتشر شده است.

[Sari · Rating 4 out of 5]

DeWitts take on the concept of "worldview" and on the history of our major (natural)scientific worldviews is an easy-to-read introductory book that can be recommended to anyone. DeWitt goes through the Aristotelian, Newtonian and post-Newtonian worldviews with added clarity and explains difficult scientific theories with keeping in mind the philosophical implications of those theories. As a student of philosophy, I enjoyed reading this book for its lightness and do think of it essential for all teachers of ethics and religion. I believe I learned a great deal from DeWitt.

[Ali Ebrahimi · Rating 5 out of 5]

اولین تجربه خوانش گروهی من با این کتاب فوق العاده مصادف شد. همینجا بمونه تا بعدا براش یه ریویو مفصل بنویسم.

[Stone · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book talks about how science, religion, and philosophy were always intertwined and only acted in unison to push for progress in human understanding of the objective world. Copernicus's heliocentrism, for example, wasn't devised out of pure scientific curiosity, rather it was born out of his devout religious beliefs of God's omnipotence manifested in the body of the Sun. The well-known persecution of Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno weren't executed on religious grounds, but rather results of the loss of spiritual hegemony once boasted only by the Roman Catholic Church. Religions never persecuted science or philosophy, nor did science and philosophy "harm" or "damage" religions; behind all the epic struggles between scientists, priests, and philosophers was nothing more than the struggle of power. Understanding this harmonious relationship between the trio is the key to understand any worldviews, past and present. The development, prosperity, decline, and extinction of a worldview were never the product of some great scientific enlightenment or philosophical awakening, but rather the systematic update of the previous worldview through the combined efforts from all three.

The book was quite well written and in many occasions, very enlightening; I recommend the book on the basis of promoting a more comprehensive, objective, and fact-based attitude of looking at the history of science and philosophy.

[Negar Moradi · Rating 4 out of 5]

بخش اول کتاب متمرکز بر درآمدی از فلسفه علم بود که به نظرم جرقه‌ی خوبی برای شروع فلسفه علم هست. :)
بعد به ترتیب جهان‌بینی ارسطویی->نیوتونی->نسبیت->کوانتوم و در آخر تکامل!
ترجمه‌ی بخش کوانتوم نسبتا خوب نبود و با مقدار کمی دانش مکانیک کوانتوم میشد فهمید که ترجمه‌ی کلمات رو یک ساینتیست انتخاب نکرده. بخش تکامل به نظرم ناکامل بود اما از جهتی کتاب تخصصی تکامل نبود و تقربیا هدف اشاره‌ی کلی به تکامل بوده. (بخش فرااخلاق در این قسمت بسیار جالب بود:)!)
در کل کتاب روند درستی داشت و برای درک یک درآمد سطحی از تاریخ علم مناسب بود.

[Samuel M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much like Reinventing the Bazaar (my previous book) this book did exactly what it set out to do. It gave a fairly comprehensive, yet introductory overview of the history and philosophy of science. I can't say that the middle third of the book was particularly great as I find it difficult to generate interest in old and largely irrelevant scientific theories, but the first third (which dealt with the philosophy of science) and the final third (to do with modern discoveries) were fairly engaging. I will say, it was sometimes frustrating that certain topics were only skimmed rather than gone into in depth, but I can't fault the book for that really. Striking the balance between informative and broad enough is not easy in books like these and I'd say that on the whole, this does a fairly good job and I can be happy with my fairly rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity.

[Lluvia Zuniga · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed the first few chapters that covered definitions of philosophy terms such as inductive and deductive logic. I had heard these terms many times but did not understand them. The author is really good at giving examples of these types of terms. It does get a little annoying when they go into too much detail in 'experimentalism' versus 'realism'. I think these terms are kind of self explanatory. Small complaint. The second half of the book attempts to describe all kinds of physical phenomena from epicycles to quantum mechanics and it just does not to a good job.

[Robert Lewis · Rating 3 out of 5]

The history and philosophy of science are broad and often complicated subjects. Mastery of these fields requires not only an extensive knowledge of the content of the scientific body of knowledge, but of the historical developments not only in scientific discovery but in philosophical discourse. While certainly rewarding, study of these ideas is not always easy. This book serves as a gentle introduction to many of these ideas suitable primarily to the beginning student of the philosophy of science.

DeWitt should be applauded for attempting to condense such a broad field of inquiry into a single book. And indeed he's largely successful in doing so, tracing the evolution of the scientific "worldview" (to use the book's terminology) beginning with pre-scientific thinkers like Aristotle and ending with contemporary developments such as relativity and quantum mechanics. Both the scientific and philosophical ideas are introduced gently, giving the reader plenty of opportunity to begin to develop an understanding of often highly-technical information almost regardless of their scientific or philosophical background.

The book's strength--introducing these ideas gently to the novice reader--is also its greatest weakness, however. Readers already familiar with the history and/or philosophy of science will seldom find any new information here. That's no sin, as it's meant to be an introductory text. Where it does stumble a bit, though, is in its tendency to raise genuinely interesting points of philosophical controversy without taking the time to supply a deeper analysis. While reading, I often found that the author brought me right up to the point at which I found the material most interesting, but regularly stopped just short of carrying me to the point at which I could really refine my philosophy.

I do recommend this book if you're just beginning a study in the philosophy of science, but if you're genuinely interested in these ideas, you'd do well to immediately follow this book with some more advanced texts on the subject.

[Mobina golsefatan · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب قلم روان و بیان شیوایی دارد و برای ورود به این مباحث باب خوبی‌ست.
البته نزدیک به سه سال پیش من این کتاب رو در جمع اهالی علم و فلسفه خوندم که خیلی چسبید :)
مقداریش باقی مونده بود که بالاخره تمام شد
گروه‌های کتاب‌خوانی خوب واقعا در آدم جان تازه می‌دمند.

[Yossi Khebzou · Rating 5 out of 5]

As part of my college career, I have to do *a lot* of Physics and it has sort of become a mechanized endeavor for me. Just apply the formula, understand the main ideas and you’ll be fine. This book made me rediscover my love for Physics through its History and Philosophy. With an array of topics from Aristotelian and Ptolemaic conceptions all the way to Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory, this books provides excellent examples to understand the logic behind the most important developments regarding the subject. What’s special about this book is that it isn’t a textbook with exercises or equations, but it makes you question the world around you, the conceptions you take as “facts” and the logic of the worldview of our time. He explains how Aristotelian and Newtonian worldviews have shaped conventional thought about the how, why and where do we live. Mind-blowing and excellent.

[Julia · Rating 4 out of 5]

The topic is rather esoteric so unless someone has a burning interest in the history and philosophy of science, I don't think anyone will necessarily stumble upon my two cents. It's been over a decade since sitting through multiple history of science classes at the university, and I was looking for something to recap all that I had learned. This is the best summary yet, and DeWitt does make this topic accessible to anyone who may be coming to this subject for the first time. The examples are clear. The text can be redundant, but DeWitt does a good job transitioning from Aristotelian worldview clear through to neo-Darwinian synthesis, framing the analysis within (or around) major philosophical ideas.

[Negar · Rating 4 out of 5]

خیلی ترتیب خوبی داشت و برعکس کتاب‌های تاریخ علم صرفا تاریخ نبود و آشنایی خوبی با فلسفه علم هم میداد. فقط ترجمه در قسمت کوانتوم مشکل داشت.

[Arianne X · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Wonderful Review of Worldviews

The most troubling finding is that almost any worldview can be believed if it is taught from an early age. A worldview, no matter what it claims or contains, will appear to be obvious and correct if we are introduced to it early enough in life. This is true of a scientific as well as religious sets of explanations of the observed world. This is also unsettlingly true of ethical and political worldviews. As long as a set of beliefs is consistently presented, it can be believed even if it is internally inconsistent incoherent, wrong, or pernicious. The point is that humans have always needed a complete explanation of their observed environment and have always managed to construct one. In many cases these explanations are wrong, but they still ‘work’ in terms of providing an explanation. From within any worldview, the beliefs spawned by that worldview will appear to be obviously correct.

The Ptolemaic View:

The Universe is an Organism

The risk of course is that even what we take to be a rationally grounded scientifically derived worldview can turn out to be wrong. For example, the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, based on straight-forward empirical observations and the best science of the time resulted in the Earth being spherical, stationary and at the center of the universe. It was wrong in two of these three findings. The conceptual assumptions of perfect circular and uniform motion allowed the Ptolemaic system to include arbitrary characteristics, to add whatever was needed in terms of epicycles for example, that when combined with most advanced mathematics of the time, rendered valid explanations of observed data and accurate predictions of future events. The conceptual assumptions had the weight of empirical facts to those who made the assumptions. In fact, within the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, the perfect circular and uniform motion of celestial bodies was thought to be an empirical observation or fact of reality that any theory of the cosmos must consider and explain. What is most interesting in the example of the Ptolemaic model is that it met the minimum requirements of a valid scientific theory in that it was able to explain current observations and make accurate predictions. In the example of the Ptolemaic model, it was exactly backwards versus the modern model we now accept. In fact, it had to be exactly backwards to work while being wrong. For example, the apparent daily movement of the sun around the Earth could be explained by the Earth being stationary with the sun revolving around the Earth or by the exact opposite, the sun being stationary with the Earth revolving around the sun.

The Newtonian View:

The Universe is a Machine

Of course, the failing of the Polemic system are all too easy to see and identify when looking back at the discredited beliefs or findings which have been superseded. When it comes to our own extant beliefs and current finding, it becomes exceedingly difficult to see or admit that what we think of as solid empirical observations are really just philosophical presumptions and conceptual assumptions. This was easy to see when our ancestors thought that they observed perfect circular uniform motion and constant speed of all celestial bodies as solid empirical observations, and so it seemed to be the case in a time of unaided observations. Much of the Newtonian view of the universe is based on the work Copernicus and Kepler as well as the findings of Galileo. The correct view was now that of the Sun as the center of solar system and celestial bodies moving in very predictable ways with nearly mechanistic exactness which could be described mathematically and formulated into precise laws of motion. But of course, this view contained conceptual and philosophical assumptions that were thought to be empirical observations. For example, that space and time are absolute and gravity is a force of attraction between bodies.

The Einsteinian View:

The Universe is Relative

Prior to Einstein, we empirically observed (actually assumed) that space and time were absolute. Absolute space means that distances do not change as a result of motion. Absolute time means the amount of time which passes is the same for everyone and everywhere. Of course, Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity demonstrated that these empirical observations about absolute space and absolute time were just assumptions about the way we thought reality must work and obviously works. After Einstein, we ‘know’, when objects are in motion, time moves more slowly (time dilation) , distances shrink (spatial contraction) and the simultaneity of events is a matter of relative perspective (relativity of simultaneity) about the events themselves as well as ’knowing’ that gravity is a function of acceleration and deceleration within spacetime which itself is curved due to the presence of massive objects. Gravity is not a force of attraction after all. Again, contrary to common sense observations, space and time run counter to our strongly held intuitions - we find that space and time are relative to the observer.

The Quantum View:

The Universe is Entangled

Quantum theory makes us rethink the most fundamental assumptions which we have accepted about material reality since the time of the ancient Greeks. For example, our observation (really an assumption) that causality without connection is not possible. In terms of scientific theories, a shift in thinking that came with quantum theory is that it provides probabilistic predictions rather than our more accustomed expectation of definite predictions. Quantum theory uses mathematics to make probable predictions about things that have never been directly seen such as electrons, photons, or any subatomic entity, not precise predictions in the Newtonian sense. The complex math of quantum theory is used to predict the probabilities of observing the possible outcomes of measurements performed on quantum systems - this is the current state of our ounce vaunted quest for certainty in our battle against the chaos.

Measurement itself becomes a causal in a way that it is not in other branches of science or from within the Newtonian paradigm. That is, making a measurement changes the result of the measurement. Based on this, which is the standard interpretation of quantum theory, quantum entities such as elections do not have any definite properties until they are measured. On this view, our knowledge of reality does not change when we measure it, reality itself changes upon measurement. There is still an undying reality of some sort but it is without attributes, properties, or characteristics until they are measured. I call this fuzzy reality. That is, there is some sort of reality independent of our measurements but this reality is not really formed, so nothing can be known about it, until we measure it. Under the standard model of quantum theory, it is not the case that we simply do not know the attributes (position, momentum, spin) of quantum entities until we measure them rather, it is the case that quantum entities do not have attributes until we assign them by measuring them. This is odd in that it means quantum mechanics is not independent of the choices we make. But this independence is what we expect and still see in any other basic science such physics, chemistry, or biology – these sciences are seen as being about the objective world independent of human choices. This was the basis of Einstein’s objection. His view was that quantum entities must have definite attributes before they are measured. Einstein was convinced that underlying fundamental reality had to be a definite reality independent of our measurements and that if this is not the case, then something is missing from quantum theory; quantum theory is an incomplete theory of reality. The other possibility is that quantum theory itself is valid, sound, and complete but something is missing from our interpretation of quantum theory. In any case, this measurement issue is the idea behind the superposition of states as postulated in quantum theory. The superposition of states describes how the same physical interaction (or causal event) in a quantum entity such as a photon can result in one of two different possible outcomes or states as opposed to just one predictable outcome or state as we are accustomed to expect in the world of baseballs for example. In the case of hitting a baseball, every iteration of the same physical interaction between bat and ball has one and only possible outcomes if the causal factors are the same. We know the path the baseball will take prior to observation of the outcome if we know all of the inputs. In contrast, with quantum theory there are multiple possible outcomes which exist prior to observation. Thus, superposition is by definition a state that can never be observed. After observation, but only after observation, there is one outcome, the superposition collapses or ends, i.e., either Schrodinger’s cat is dead or the cat is alive, but it is not both upon observation. It is both alive and dead when in superposition, i.e., prior to observation.

Another possibility is that superpositions never collapses or end and we are in a many-worlds (multiple-states) reality, Schrodinger’s cat is both alive and dead but in different but parallel worlds, but we can only occupy and observe one of these worlds. The math of quantum theory actually supports a many worlds interpretation. One work around for the superposition problem or the many worlds scenario is to simply treat the measurement problem instrumentally and not as a representing some fundamental underlying contradiction in reality since quantum theory otherwise works so well in terms of resolving problems and making accurate predictions. Interestingly, the Ptolemaic model of the solar system was treated as instrumental and not as a literal reality by many astronomers who used it for making astronomical predictions but never thought that all of the epicycles were literally true. Treating quantum theory as literally true of fundamental or underlying reality results in too many anomalies and oddities.

Another challenge to the current model of quantum physics is the lack of universality. Prior to the quantum model, fundamental theories were universally applicable, e.g., gravitation and motion. However, Schrodinger’s equation, which is at the heart of quantum theory, is not employed as a universal principle. It is only applied contextually. Thus, a commonsense view is not viable in quantum physics just as commonsense views were proved to be wrong in the study of the solar system. Finally, quantum theory does not fit well with the theory of relativity in that faster-than-light influences are needed to account for causality without connection (action at a distance – referred to as ‘spooky’ by Einstein) but predicted by quantum theory and experimentally verified. But what are these faster-than-light influences? To quote the author “no one has the foggiest idea.”

The Evolutionary View:

The Universe is Natural

Theories of the cosmos have implications for the sort of universe in which we live. The theory of evolution has implications for our place in that universe. The theory of evolution has proven to be one of the most profound, impactful, and productive discovers of the last 150 years. For example, the entire science of genetics is not possible without the theory of evolution. The understanding of DNA itself is result of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution best showcases the change in worldview from teleological or supernatural to natural. A great mistake made by the skeptics of evolution is to think it is goal driven or driven by a purpose. This is to project human values onto a natural process. Evolution is not a process that moves in a preferred direction. Evolution and the process of natural section is a theory of how life adapts itself for survival and reproduction by developing advantageous traits given its environment. As the author puts it “populations do not adapt to survive, they survive because they adapt”. The first part of statement is teleological, the second part is naturalistic.

The theory of evolution in no way undermines ethical standards or moral judgements as is often charged. It forces us to better understand them. The standard charge is that without a universal provider (God and religion) of objective truths, ethical standards and moral judgements are an illusion. That is, our ethical principles or moral judgements are no longer objective. This is exactly backward, sound familiar? It is not the case that the theory of evolution makes objectivity an illusion, objectivity always was an illusion, we are now able to recognize this feature of human existence with the theory of evolution. From an evolutionary perspective, ethical standards and moral codes have performed a crucial evolutionary role in enhancing survival. We learn that ethics and morals are not a feature of nature independent of human existence. We have simply evolved to develop shared community values which we treat as ‘objective’ within our community for the purpose of promoting in-group cooperation and trust while reducing harm. Such ingrained behaviors such as trust, cooperation, forgiveness, punishment, and altruism found in all human groups suggest an evolutionary source. Evolutionary success is a matter of building a community of trust and increasing the size of the in-group, not imposing the illusion of objective truth. The best we can do is strive for continuous improvement without insistence upon the objective truth or a source for it apart from our community arrangements. This is objective enough.

Region is Not a Valid Worldview:

The key difference is that a scientific worldview includes the provision that it could be wrong whereas as religious views contain no such provision or caveat and thus foreclose any potential for self-correction and progress. The provision that we can be wrong is what I like to call a safety valve for a worldview. In this sense, I do not accept religion as a valid worldview, it is just a dogmatic belief system. The ostensible observed facts of the world are not enough to render a worldview true. Such facts are still subject to our philosophical or conceptual views of reality (simply our ideas about the way the world works as discussed above). We simply treat our assumptions as the equivalent of observable empirical facts and make this fit into the broader context of a belief system. The whole of science shows that God only exists as a human creation and leaves no room for religion. Fully accepting science requires fully accepting the central idea of science – that claims must be tested with evidence and must subjected to scrutiny. Science since the 1600s, and really as far back as 600 BC, has consistently shown that the universe unfolds according to natural principles in precisely such a way as to make a supernatural God impossible. Religion does not provide an intellectually honest worldview. But religious belief is too well entrenched to be shaken by new evidence. This is the great problem with cult and religious belief systems, they offer an easy to understand set of explanations of the world which are completely wrong when independently compared to the external and testable facts of the world or proven theories.

[Luna Gu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scientific, knowledgable, and most importantly it reminds us to examine our assumptions not just in daily conversation, but also in science. As the author illustrated the progression of science history, we can see clearly how one discovery can shift the whole map of our meaning and understanding of the world, and it gives me a clearer picture of where we might be today, and to accept to ideas that may sound ridiculous but might of some value.

Some part in the middle is hard to digest with all the experiments, rules of experiments and scientific theories explanation, all of them brought me back to high school physics class, and I have to admit it was not my favorite. And Einstein's relative theory and string theory didn't make it easier.
However, when reached to the very end of the book, the author started to explore and introduce the idea of evolution, and how other scientists and theologists respond to this shift. It became interesting again and it reminded me of another book by Sean Carroll. They both touched the idea of a general direction of evolution although it was so random. Sean Carroll regarded it as survival and the inclination of being more complex. While John F. Haught argued that he believes the evolution process itself is "God", that from the process we could witness the divine spirit in it. I like both the ideas, and when combined it gave me a clearer direction.

Although it is a hard read, and for 2 weeks while I was very busy, I could only finish 10 pages and call it a day, it worth reading and reviewing all those scientific and philosophical concepts in our history.

[Amir Astro]

The book is really easy to read but contains minor and major mistakes. The author's understanding of the philosophy of Aristotle is not without difficulties. He does not know the difference between the natural motion and voluntary motion in the philosophy of Aristotle. Aristotle believed that the elements like the Earth move naturally to their natural position at the centre of the universe. In contrast the celestials spheres do not go go to a natural place. They rotate by will. His account of the copernican system is totally a misunderstand. Copernicus presented his new model not to solve the equant problem although it was one of his achievements. Copernican model was simpler than ptolemaic model by eliminating the epicycles. Although There are epicycles in copernican model, they are not for explanation of the retrograde motion of the planets. As the astronomers of the Maragha school like Tusi and Ibn Shatir add some additional epicycles for the ptolemaic model to solve the equant problem.

[Joshua Judd · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful and accessible work of intellectual history. This book takes the reader through time, carefully detailing the historical evolution of the dominant worldviews that have shaped science as we know it in the 21st century. Worldviews does a great job of telling why humans used to believe certain theories that we now scoff at, such as the flat-earth, or perfectly circular orbits. If you're looking for an introductory-level book about the history of scientific thought, read this book.

[Kristin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Schrödinger's cat, parallel universes, God, the possibility we live in a matrix, and do nice guys really finish last?

DeWitt's history and philosophy of science in "Worldviews" has a little bit of everything. It makes you think, a little bit too much at times. It reminds you that if you think you got the universe figured out, you're just like all the fools before you.

Interesting stuff. DeWitt does have a modicum of writing talent as well, but if Bill Bryson had ghostwritten this stuff? Dang. It would have been fire.

[Damen Chan · Rating 5 out of 5]

本書將科學史與科學哲學共冶一爐，簡述我們由亞里斯多德到牛頓，再到現代科學的整體世界觀的轉變。所謂世界觀，就是一套我們了解世界的思想拼圖：當中核心信念是拼圖中的主塊，周邊圍繞著外圍拼圖，就是周邊信念；周邊信念與核心信念緊接，形成我們的思考網路。每當有科學的新發現，便會挑戰我們的固有思想信念：周邊信念可以隨意置換，適應當時的新觀念，一如更換拼圖；但核心信念卻改不得，一旦科學新發現的衝擊大到可以打破核心信念，整將拼圖便非得砍掉重練不可。

除了基本的哲學觀念外，本書其中的一個主要旨趣，講的便是我們世界觀的轉變，當中主要著墨於天文學。伽利略的望遠鏡所展現的客觀證據（確證事實），不住衝擊亞里斯多德在西方社會已建立二千年且視之為常的地心說；而牛頓的萬有引力定律，就更加是地心說最後的一顆棺材釘，將亞里斯多德的世界觀徹底摧毀。

到了現代，相對論、量子力學與演化論的發現，又將歷史重演一次：新理論不住衝擊著牛頓的世界觀。牛頓力學遺下豐厚的工具主義價值，但我們知道相對論才是而現實主義而存在。

好書！五星大推薦！

[Gavin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although I started initially in 2018 reading the required sections for my undergraduate, starting again in 2023 I found that I really should’ve read this book in its entirety rather than just the required. Eye opening and well explaining how the world has changed in terms of worldview as well as how the wise are willing to change their minds in the face of new and confounding information and realities.

[Daniel Arter · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book gives excellent insight into the transformation of the overall worldview from Aristotle’s more earth-centric/man-centric worldview to our more modern sun-centric worldview.

I thought the first two sections were written well with little bias, but when the author gets into the final section, his own worldview is given priority over any other worldview currently utilized in modernity.

[Robin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bit of a mind boggle for this humanities major, but wow. Makes you rethink what science is, what it aims to do, and why we make it the end-all and be-all of authority in modern life. Shifted my understanding of science as a whole and of education about science as well.

[Christine · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book did an outstanding work on the introduction to the history and philosophy of science. Besides its good structure, the book impressed me by its precise and concise expression. The further reading list was also valuable and well-arranged for the readers.

[Isabella · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book for a college course and had a good time. It brings attention to how our society advances and what it takes for our society to advance. Highly recommend for anyone who is curious about scientific revolutions and how they progress.

[Waqas Khan · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best book on the topic

[Rod Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good introduction to the philosophy and history of science. Every science major should read this book.

[Clouds Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read about the philosophy of science.

[Lu · Rating 5 out of 5]

第三部分几乎没看，但也收获良多。

[Victorlohk]

Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science
by Richard DeWitt

[Leisurecan · Rating 3 out of 5]

过去的科学观不因它是错的就没有可取之处，其实在当时那已经是人类认知的极限。历史书喜欢造神，很多科学家的初衷也不是为了推翻之前的理论才发明新的理论。以及量子力学太神奇了，微观的世界和宏观居然是完全不同的。

[Kayduan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic