What do you think?
Rate this book
Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It
Choose one: (A) Science gives us objective knowledge of an independently existing reality. (B) Scientific knowledge is always provisional and tells us nothing that is universal, necessary, or certain about the world. Welcome to the science wars—a long-running battle over the status of scientific knowledge that began in ancient Greece, raged furiously among scientists, social scientists, and humanists during the 1990s, and has re-emerged in today's conflict between science and religion over issues such as evolution.
Professor Steven L. Goldman, whose Teaching Company course on Science in the 20th Century was praised by customers as "a scholarly achievement of the highest order" and "excellent in every way," leads you on a quest for the nature of scientific reasoning in this intellectually pathbreaking lecture series, Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It.
Those who have taken Professor Goldman's previous course, which is an intensive survey of the revolution in scientific knowledge from 1900 to 2000, may have wondered: if what counts as scientific knowledge can transform so dramatically within only 100 years, what exactly is scientific knowledge? Science Wars addresses this surprisingly difficult question.
Five Centuries of the Science Wars
In 24 half-hour lectures, Science Wars explores the history of competing conceptions of scientific knowledge and their implications for science and society from the onset of the Scientific Revolution in the 1600s to the present. It may seem that the accelerating pace of discoveries, inventions, and unexpected insights into nature during this period guarantees the secure foundations of scientific inquiry, but that is far from true. Consider these cases:
The scientific method: In the 1600s the English philosopher Francis Bacon defined the scientific method in its classic form: the use of inductive reasoning to draw conclusions from an exhaustive body of facts. But "no scientist has ever been a strict Baconian," says Professor Goldman. "If you followed that, you would get nowhere."
A "heated" debate: Around 1800 the dispute over the nature of heat was resolved in favor of the theory that heat is motion and not a substance given off during burning. But then the French mathematical physicist Joseph Fourier wrote a set of equations that accurately described how heat behaves regardless of what it "really" is, which, Fourier contended, was not a scientific question at all.
Paradigm shifts: The publication in 1962 of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions precipitated a radical change in attitudes toward scientific knowledge, prompted by Kuhn's insight that science is not an entirely rational enterprise, and that its well-established theories (or paradigms) are overturned in a revolutionary, nonlogical process.
Postmodern putdown: The postmodern attack on science as a privileged mode of inquiry made some headway in the late 20th century. But the credibility of the movement wilted in 1996, when a postmodern journal unwittingly published a spoof by physicist Alan Sokal, purporting to prove that physical theory was socially constructed. Sokal then exposed his piece as a parody.
In the penultimate lecture of the course, Professor Goldman considers intelligent design—the argument that evolution can't account for the immense complexity of life and that a master designer must be at work. He approaches this topical debate by asking: What are the minimum criteria that define a hypothesis as scientific, and does intelligent design qualify? Having already covered five centuries of the science wars in the previous lectures, you will analyze this controversy with a set of tools that allows you to see the issues in a sharp, new light.
What Is Reality?
"Fasten your seatbelts," says Professor Goldman at the outset of Lecture 21—an advisory that applies equally to the whole course, which covers an astonishing array of ideas and thinkers. Throughout, Professor Goldman never loses his narrative thread, which begins 2,400 years ago with Plato's allegorical battle between "the gods" and "the earth giants"—between those for whom knowledge is universal, necessary, and certain; and those for whom it cannot be so and is based wholly on experience.
The problem of what constitutes scientific knowledge can be illustrated with one of the most famous and widely accepted scientific theories of all time, Nicolaus Copernicus's heliostatic (stationary sun) theory of the solar system, which has undergone continual change since it was first proposed in 1543: Copernicus called for the planets to move in uniform circular motion around the sun, slightly displaced from the center. Using observations by Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler revised the Copernican model, discarding the ancient dogma of circular motion, which did not fit the data. Instead, he guessed that the planets in fact move in elliptical orbits. In his influential work endorsing the Cop...
Professor Steven L. Goldman, whose Teaching Company course on Science in the 20th Century was praised by customers as "a scholarly achievement of the highest order" and "excellent in every way," leads you on a quest for the nature of scientific reasoning in this intellectually pathbreaking lecture series, Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It.
Those who have taken Professor Goldman's previous course, which is an intensive survey of the revolution in scientific knowledge from 1900 to 2000, may have wondered: if what counts as scientific knowledge can transform so dramatically within only 100 years, what exactly is scientific knowledge? Science Wars addresses this surprisingly difficult question.
Five Centuries of the Science Wars
In 24 half-hour lectures, Science Wars explores the history of competing conceptions of scientific knowledge and their implications for science and society from the onset of the Scientific Revolution in the 1600s to the present. It may seem that the accelerating pace of discoveries, inventions, and unexpected insights into nature during this period guarantees the secure foundations of scientific inquiry, but that is far from true. Consider these cases:
The scientific method: In the 1600s the English philosopher Francis Bacon defined the scientific method in its classic form: the use of inductive reasoning to draw conclusions from an exhaustive body of facts. But "no scientist has ever been a strict Baconian," says Professor Goldman. "If you followed that, you would get nowhere."
A "heated" debate: Around 1800 the dispute over the nature of heat was resolved in favor of the theory that heat is motion and not a substance given off during burning. But then the French mathematical physicist Joseph Fourier wrote a set of equations that accurately described how heat behaves regardless of what it "really" is, which, Fourier contended, was not a scientific question at all.
Paradigm shifts: The publication in 1962 of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions precipitated a radical change in attitudes toward scientific knowledge, prompted by Kuhn's insight that science is not an entirely rational enterprise, and that its well-established theories (or paradigms) are overturned in a revolutionary, nonlogical process.
Postmodern putdown: The postmodern attack on science as a privileged mode of inquiry made some headway in the late 20th century. But the credibility of the movement wilted in 1996, when a postmodern journal unwittingly published a spoof by physicist Alan Sokal, purporting to prove that physical theory was socially constructed. Sokal then exposed his piece as a parody.
In the penultimate lecture of the course, Professor Goldman considers intelligent design—the argument that evolution can't account for the immense complexity of life and that a master designer must be at work. He approaches this topical debate by asking: What are the minimum criteria that define a hypothesis as scientific, and does intelligent design qualify? Having already covered five centuries of the science wars in the previous lectures, you will analyze this controversy with a set of tools that allows you to see the issues in a sharp, new light.
What Is Reality?
"Fasten your seatbelts," says Professor Goldman at the outset of Lecture 21—an advisory that applies equally to the whole course, which covers an astonishing array of ideas and thinkers. Throughout, Professor Goldman never loses his narrative thread, which begins 2,400 years ago with Plato's allegorical battle between "the gods" and "the earth giants"—between those for whom knowledge is universal, necessary, and certain; and those for whom it cannot be so and is based wholly on experience.
The problem of what constitutes scientific knowledge can be illustrated with one of the most famous and widely accepted scientific theories of all time, Nicolaus Copernicus's heliostatic (stationary sun) theory of the solar system, which has undergone continual change since it was first proposed in 1543: Copernicus called for the planets to move in uniform circular motion around the sun, slightly displaced from the center. Using observations by Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler revised the Copernican model, discarding the ancient dogma of circular motion, which did not fit the data. Instead, he guessed that the planets in fact move in elliptical orbits. In his influential work endorsing the Cop...
12 pages, Audio CD
First published January 1, 2006
7 people are currently reading
166 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
June 30, 2020
This is a masterful historical summary of the philosophy of science, but that is not what the title advertises. A better title would have been "Philosophy Wars: How Philosophers Love Debating about the Nature of Reality." This is a shame because there are all kinds of enemies of science attacking it on multiple fronts, and it would be good if more people were armed with an adequate understanding of how scientists do actually know stuff about the world we live in.
As far as I know the professor's historical facts are all correct, and I agree with his general conclusion about the evolutionary nature of scientific knowledge, and he is a very good lecturer. But the course revolves around metaphysical musings about the difference between knowledge and Knowledge. No, I'm not kidding--or Kidding.
Way too much time is spent on non-science from Bacon to Deconstructionists. Very little time is spent on the concept of the overall weight of the best available evidence. Towards the end, there's a good explanation of why Intelligent Design just isn't science, but there's not a similarly detailed exposition of how Darwin knew what he knew, for example. I think if there was time for an hour on Francis Bacon, then there was room for a whole lecture on The Origin of Species.
As far as I know the professor's historical facts are all correct, and I agree with his general conclusion about the evolutionary nature of scientific knowledge, and he is a very good lecturer. But the course revolves around metaphysical musings about the difference between knowledge and Knowledge. No, I'm not kidding--or Kidding.
Way too much time is spent on non-science from Bacon to Deconstructionists. Very little time is spent on the concept of the overall weight of the best available evidence. Towards the end, there's a good explanation of why Intelligent Design just isn't science, but there's not a similarly detailed exposition of how Darwin knew what he knew, for example. I think if there was time for an hour on Francis Bacon, then there was room for a whole lecture on The Origin of Species.
September 5, 2023
I wish everyone read this before COVID. Couple surprises, he hardly mentioned Aristotle which makes sense given his model of Plato v the Sophists.
Also he gave one short lecture to the intelligent design debate. I came into it expecting there to be a lot more on that.
It was refreshing to see that science has never been a pure discipline with much debate and conflict over issues.
Also he gave one short lecture to the intelligent design debate. I came into it expecting there to be a lot more on that.
It was refreshing to see that science has never been a pure discipline with much debate and conflict over issues.
January 29, 2023
I can't recommend this lecture highly enough. It is definitely on my short list for the best lecture (and book) I've ever listened to. I just read a very negative review in the Wall Street Journal for Weinberg's new book, "To Explain the World", which illustrates perfectly why this lecture is so great, by a reviewer who obviously never listened to this lecture. He attacks Weinberg for thinking Bacon was not influential, Descartes and Galileo were too Platonic and Plato was silly. After having listened to this lecture I realize how misinformed the reviewer really is, and how all those things are true and why.
Absolute Knowledge must be "universal, necessary, and certain". That gives the deductive systems. But, science is partly an application of logical truths to empirical facts. That will give us some problems. Such as, If it is a crow, it is black". As far as we know that is a true statement. Even the contra positive, "if it is not black, then it is not a crow". But, and here is the reason why deductive logic systems (mathematics, tautologies, or universal, necessary, and certain systems) can lead to absurdities has it used to be said that "all swans are white", guess what they found black swans in Australia. The premise must be true for the system to work, but cause and effect is always the particular based on observation, and one never knows the truth of a premise unless one makes the rules as in chess or in math but never from observations (swans can be black). "All living Pegasus are green" is absolutely true since when you assume a false premise anything that follows must be true. For a deductive system to be relevant to the real world there must be something from the real world to tie it to. The moment you do that you take the system out of the certain and put it into the probable. Revealed religions have this problem, but most believers never realize the problem for what it is. Once there is certainty (as in Christianity) there is nothing but sophistry and I can learn nothing from sophistry.
Once again, I can't recommend this lecture enough for people who want to understand our place in the universe.
Merged review:
I like this lecture so much that I re-listened to it. I'm glad I did. I got even more out of it on the second listen. The is the only book (or lecture) that I've reread or re-listened.
Merged review:
This marks the third time I've done this course. Now, I understand why I like it so much.
Absolute Knowledge must be "universal, necessary, and certain". That gives the deductive systems. But, science is partly an application of logical truths to empirical facts. That will give us some problems. Such as, If it is a crow, it is black". As far as we know that is a true statement. Even the contra positive, "if it is not black, then it is not a crow". But, and here is the reason why deductive logic systems (mathematics, tautologies, or universal, necessary, and certain systems) can lead to absurdities has it used to be said that "all swans are white", guess what they found black swans in Australia. The premise must be true for the system to work, but cause and effect is always the particular based on observation, and one never knows the truth of a premise unless one makes the rules as in chess or in math but never from observations (swans can be black). "All living Pegasus are green" is absolutely true since when you assume a false premise anything that follows must be true. For a deductive system to be relevant to the real world there must be something from the real world to tie it to. The moment you do that you take the system out of the certain and put it into the probable. Revealed religions have this problem, but most believers never realize the problem for what it is. Once there is certainty (as in Christianity) there is nothing but sophistry and I can learn nothing from sophistry.
Once again, I can't recommend this lecture enough for people who want to understand our place in the universe.
Merged review:
I like this lecture so much that I re-listened to it. I'm glad I did. I got even more out of it on the second listen. The is the only book (or lecture) that I've reread or re-listened.
Merged review:
This marks the third time I've done this course. Now, I understand why I like it so much.
January 16, 2009
Not what I thought/hoped it would be. I was hoping for an account of the arguments surrounding some of the more hotly contested issues in the history of science. A little of the heat between Albert Einstein a Neils Bohr about Quantum Mechanics or some of the arguments surrounding Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, for example, would have been nice. Unfortunately, the theme of this book had more of a phylosophical slant and dealt mostly with how scientists KNOW what they know. (Phylosophy of knowledge) That's fine, it just wasn't the exciting work, for me, that I'd hoped it would be.
This course did, however, have some nice history of science stuff in it. One thing that continues to amaze me is the breadth of knowledge that early philosophers (scientists) had. Not much was known about any one subject, so they knew a little (a fair amount sometimes) bit about everything. There is so much power is wide bases of knowledge, because it allows integration of ideas and vast data to generate creative new, and really relevant, ideas. We all know about people like Aristotle and Michelangelo, but I didn't know about Immanuel Kant doing work in physics as well as his social phylosophical/metaphysical work. I had never heard that and had no idea that much of his philosophical work had been to argue the importance and truth of Newtonian physics. Fascinating.
This course did, however, have some nice history of science stuff in it. One thing that continues to amaze me is the breadth of knowledge that early philosophers (scientists) had. Not much was known about any one subject, so they knew a little (a fair amount sometimes) bit about everything. There is so much power is wide bases of knowledge, because it allows integration of ideas and vast data to generate creative new, and really relevant, ideas. We all know about people like Aristotle and Michelangelo, but I didn't know about Immanuel Kant doing work in physics as well as his social phylosophical/metaphysical work. I had never heard that and had no idea that much of his philosophical work had been to argue the importance and truth of Newtonian physics. Fascinating.
April 29, 2020
Goldman is magnificent. His breadth and depth of knowledge, his pace, speech cadence (even his accent), integrated with morsels of insight and humor make this lecture series fun, occasionally hilarious, and always riveting. Take notes, pause the iPod, and make sure you get it, as each lecture builds on the last and concepts can be subtle, turning on a word or line that makes all the difference. This topic is of massive current importance.
The story told is focused on the historical development of scientific knowledge over the last 400 years as an introduction to “knowledge” of any kind since Plato and those remarkable Greeks. That is, what do we “really” know, and how do we know it? This has become a question of paramount importance for a variety of reasons: Since the mind-bending surprises of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics early in the last century confounded reality and experience; since radicalized byproducts of the Sixties giving birth to inanities of Postmodernism on the Left influencing our university humanities departments; since organization and muscular financing of Creationists (Intelligent Design, “Critical Analysis,” etc.) on the Right; and given a widespread failure of Western education, especially in the United States. For Goldman, attacks on science from the Postmodern Left (gunning for objectivity and universal truths), and Creationists on the Right (teaching religion in science class) are due to ambivalent faults in the concept of knowledge itself. Is our view of nature what nature “really” is, or is what we know simply a convenient model? If the later, knowledge can seem uncertain, so what we thought we “knew” we didn’t know, and yet somehow, all those devices still work just as scientific knowledge designed. Political ramifications of this are apparent. Who can claim to know truth if “even science doesn’t know.” Anything goes, and facts have “alternative facts.” Facts become mere opinion as political utility unless they’re “our facts,” also a political service. The costs come in our inability to decipher science from junk science, politics, entertainment, and conspiracy gibberish. The ultimate price of fostered ambiguity—the passport to successful lies—is civilization’s failure.
Throughout Goldman’s survey, there can, at times, seem too much made of evolving theories in a Thomas Kuhnian fashion of replacement rather than refinement. Differences between phases of theoretical development are emphasized rather than their similarities. This leads to the all-or-nothing opinion that incomplete is incorrect, requiring every discipline be born fully-grown with no opportunity for discovery, where expanding the initial idea is indictment rather than affirmation. Granted, some hypotheses deserve to be abandoned (and frequently are), but substantiated ideas may simply be graduating from adolescence, not something entirely new. Einstein did not replace Newton used more now than ever. While Goldman is far from either a Postmodernist or Creationist (occasionally you’ll wonder because he so convincingly articulates each position), this all-or-nothing perspective might be seen as a tool for both sides against science and reason.
Sometimes Goldman overstates matters, perhaps to make a point. For example, Kepler discovered elliptical orbits from Brahe’s data when only perfect heavenly circles were “believed” possible. But there was insufficient resolution to see ellipses in that data. Thus Kepler violated one particular aspect of the scientific method. Or was it influenced by insight? Ellipses are not so different from circles after all. It’s not as though Kepler said, “Aha! Proof of string theory and eleven dimensions!”
Goldman’s inspection of debates between pragmatists and positivists reveals little-known battles between giants and friends like Einstein and Bohr. His chronicling of this struggle among scientists to rectify the basis for certain knowledge (almost nothing comes from modern philosophers) produces some exciting turns, tips off the listener to unheard of great minds (Michael Polanyi), and does so with the thrill and humor of a well-written novel.
Tremendous series. Again, my highest kudos for Goldman. I hope, like Adam, Goldman lives to a ripe old 930 years so we might gain many more of these gems from him.
The story told is focused on the historical development of scientific knowledge over the last 400 years as an introduction to “knowledge” of any kind since Plato and those remarkable Greeks. That is, what do we “really” know, and how do we know it? This has become a question of paramount importance for a variety of reasons: Since the mind-bending surprises of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics early in the last century confounded reality and experience; since radicalized byproducts of the Sixties giving birth to inanities of Postmodernism on the Left influencing our university humanities departments; since organization and muscular financing of Creationists (Intelligent Design, “Critical Analysis,” etc.) on the Right; and given a widespread failure of Western education, especially in the United States. For Goldman, attacks on science from the Postmodern Left (gunning for objectivity and universal truths), and Creationists on the Right (teaching religion in science class) are due to ambivalent faults in the concept of knowledge itself. Is our view of nature what nature “really” is, or is what we know simply a convenient model? If the later, knowledge can seem uncertain, so what we thought we “knew” we didn’t know, and yet somehow, all those devices still work just as scientific knowledge designed. Political ramifications of this are apparent. Who can claim to know truth if “even science doesn’t know.” Anything goes, and facts have “alternative facts.” Facts become mere opinion as political utility unless they’re “our facts,” also a political service. The costs come in our inability to decipher science from junk science, politics, entertainment, and conspiracy gibberish. The ultimate price of fostered ambiguity—the passport to successful lies—is civilization’s failure.
Throughout Goldman’s survey, there can, at times, seem too much made of evolving theories in a Thomas Kuhnian fashion of replacement rather than refinement. Differences between phases of theoretical development are emphasized rather than their similarities. This leads to the all-or-nothing opinion that incomplete is incorrect, requiring every discipline be born fully-grown with no opportunity for discovery, where expanding the initial idea is indictment rather than affirmation. Granted, some hypotheses deserve to be abandoned (and frequently are), but substantiated ideas may simply be graduating from adolescence, not something entirely new. Einstein did not replace Newton used more now than ever. While Goldman is far from either a Postmodernist or Creationist (occasionally you’ll wonder because he so convincingly articulates each position), this all-or-nothing perspective might be seen as a tool for both sides against science and reason.
Sometimes Goldman overstates matters, perhaps to make a point. For example, Kepler discovered elliptical orbits from Brahe’s data when only perfect heavenly circles were “believed” possible. But there was insufficient resolution to see ellipses in that data. Thus Kepler violated one particular aspect of the scientific method. Or was it influenced by insight? Ellipses are not so different from circles after all. It’s not as though Kepler said, “Aha! Proof of string theory and eleven dimensions!”
Goldman’s inspection of debates between pragmatists and positivists reveals little-known battles between giants and friends like Einstein and Bohr. His chronicling of this struggle among scientists to rectify the basis for certain knowledge (almost nothing comes from modern philosophers) produces some exciting turns, tips off the listener to unheard of great minds (Michael Polanyi), and does so with the thrill and humor of a well-written novel.
Tremendous series. Again, my highest kudos for Goldman. I hope, like Adam, Goldman lives to a ripe old 930 years so we might gain many more of these gems from him.
March 6, 2014
This Teaching Company lecture series with its accompanying course outline is amazing! Dr. Goldman's discussion of real truth and knowledge, and the difficulty of discerning what these words really mean is mind-expanding and, to me, exceedingly interesting. What really is "truth" or "knowledge" and who gets to define those words? In the world of science, are there really any secure, unalterable, proven truths as is popularly perceived? Are popular theories really as secure as commonly supposed? This is one of those must-hear/read productions for anyone wanting their mind expanded to a better understanding of reality, truth, and knowledge.
September 22, 2022
Part of the Great Courses series, this is an audiobook recording of 24 lectures given by Steven Goldman, Professor in the Humanities at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, that examines the history, philosophy and method behind science as it has changed from the start of the Scientific Revolution in the 1600s up to 2006, when it was published. As Goldman himself says, this is not a topic that many scientists discuss, as modern science is based on certain assumptions that are just taken as read, and that many people assume have always been there. Much of it was new to me and the lectures provided an interesting and insightful presentation into the topic.
Goldman has a strong speaking voice, but to my ears, he’s a little overenthusiastic and it took me a while to get used to him and not be distracted by his energetic style. He is a wealth of information, not only reading through what he prepared, but throwing in occasional one-liners and trivial asides that seem unwritten and unrehearsed for a little extra richness to his subject. However, he seems to focus more on philosophy than science per se, and he neglects the contributions of non-western scientists. Additionally, the book is already showing its age: he expresses relief that the postmodern deconstructionists ran out of credibility at the end of the twentieth century, so it’s high time for an update to the content as they have, in the last few years, forcefully renewed their efforts to create an Age of Unreason, with a surprising degree of success.
Maybe it’s not quite what you expect, but I’m sure you’ll learn something if you have a listen. It’s certainly a good starting point if you care at all about the importance of science to the well-being of the world.
Goldman has a strong speaking voice, but to my ears, he’s a little overenthusiastic and it took me a while to get used to him and not be distracted by his energetic style. He is a wealth of information, not only reading through what he prepared, but throwing in occasional one-liners and trivial asides that seem unwritten and unrehearsed for a little extra richness to his subject. However, he seems to focus more on philosophy than science per se, and he neglects the contributions of non-western scientists. Additionally, the book is already showing its age: he expresses relief that the postmodern deconstructionists ran out of credibility at the end of the twentieth century, so it’s high time for an update to the content as they have, in the last few years, forcefully renewed their efforts to create an Age of Unreason, with a surprising degree of success.
Maybe it’s not quite what you expect, but I’m sure you’ll learn something if you have a listen. It’s certainly a good starting point if you care at all about the importance of science to the well-being of the world.
December 10, 2019
This is a Great Courses series of lectures similar to Science in the Twentieth Century: A Social-Intellectual Survey, except that the focus is on the conflict between knowing something in fact and knowing something in all probability. The standards for knowing something has changed over time, stretching from a provable fact, to a probable fact and wondering how we know it is a fact if it is true within an 85% probability.
He also talks about how science split away from natural philosophy and why that had to happen. He also talks about the fallacy that science is based on the scientific method. Certainly the scientific method shows up eventually, but the actual discoveries are rarely produced by the scientific method itself.
The professor does a good job. I usually hate philosophers but he manages to keep the philosophy lingo out of his lectures. He is engaging and easy to listen to.
I'd listen to these lectures again.
He also talks about how science split away from natural philosophy and why that had to happen. He also talks about the fallacy that science is based on the scientific method. Certainly the scientific method shows up eventually, but the actual discoveries are rarely produced by the scientific method itself.
The professor does a good job. I usually hate philosophers but he manages to keep the philosophy lingo out of his lectures. He is engaging and easy to listen to.
I'd listen to these lectures again.
May 11, 2023
I love anything by Steven L. Goldman. I love his voice, I love his passion for the topic, I love his ability to speak so intelligently and fluently, I love his depth of knowledge, and I love his ability to organize all the concepts together into a coherent package. He is the best and apparently I am a bit obsessed with his lectures.
I must admit the topic of this particular book has a bit of a 'so what?' aspect to it, but never the less I enjoyed the journey through history of scientific thinking and philosophy. Goldman's book Science in the Twentieth Century: A Social-Intellectual Survey is a must read and if you clamor for more of his style like I do then this science wars book (which is much more philosophical) is a fine read.
I must admit the topic of this particular book has a bit of a 'so what?' aspect to it, but never the less I enjoyed the journey through history of scientific thinking and philosophy. Goldman's book Science in the Twentieth Century: A Social-Intellectual Survey is a must read and if you clamor for more of his style like I do then this science wars book (which is much more philosophical) is a fine read.
December 18, 2022
Dr. Goldman is a good communicator. However, this course just isn’t that interesting. A recurring motif is subjectivism/skepticism. Dr. Goldman applies these principles somewhat selectively. With respect to science, he’s committed to the exclusion of ideas and claims which scientists have “decided” are not to be admitted. He’s anti-metaphysical. Hence, he’s incredibly critical of the intelligent design movement. But he also asserts again and again that science is fluid, and says we have every reason to believe the discipline will look as different a century from now as it did a century ago. If this is the case, why is it unimaginable that the developments and discoveries of upcoming decades will compel scientists to reckon with metaphysical implications?
Not one of the better Great Courses I’ve listened to.
Not one of the better Great Courses I’ve listened to.
Read
April 24, 2024READ
How this ended up on my TBR: I purchased this book back in 2017. I started the book years ago. Audible says I started reading it halfway through in December 2023, but that's untrue. Anyway, had credits to spend, and I liked the idea of hearing about controversies in the science world.
I don't feel comfortable providing a rating of this book. It's not unusual for me to zone out while reading a book, but this felt a little too consistent for me to give a rating. I will say that the author, Dr. Goldman, seemed like a very enthusiastic lecturer. Some of the authors of The Great Courses can make their material come alive, and I think Dr. Goldman does this. But yeah, I just wanted to get this off my TBR.
--
PS. If you all ever go to The StoryGraph, let's be friends there! Here's my profile.
How this ended up on my TBR: I purchased this book back in 2017. I started the book years ago. Audible says I started reading it halfway through in December 2023, but that's untrue. Anyway, had credits to spend, and I liked the idea of hearing about controversies in the science world.
I don't feel comfortable providing a rating of this book. It's not unusual for me to zone out while reading a book, but this felt a little too consistent for me to give a rating. I will say that the author, Dr. Goldman, seemed like a very enthusiastic lecturer. Some of the authors of The Great Courses can make their material come alive, and I think Dr. Goldman does this. But yeah, I just wanted to get this off my TBR.
--
PS. If you all ever go to The StoryGraph, let's be friends there! Here's my profile.
February 1, 2022
This is a lecture series, not a normal audiobook. So, adjust your expectations accordingly. It’s also mostly about philosophy, while science just sits in the background all the time. History plays a significant role too, which makes sense, because philosophy behind science has changed numerous times during that last 1000 years.
If you find philosophy and history boring, skip this book/lecture. If you want to know how the interaction between philosophy and science has evolved, this book could be for you. During this lecture you’ll find out how scientists have been thinking about what reality is and what can you know about it. What does it even mean when you say you know something? That sort of stuff is discussed in this lecture series.
If you find philosophy and history boring, skip this book/lecture. If you want to know how the interaction between philosophy and science has evolved, this book could be for you. During this lecture you’ll find out how scientists have been thinking about what reality is and what can you know about it. What does it even mean when you say you know something? That sort of stuff is discussed in this lecture series.
September 24, 2022
In 2006 The Teaching Company released Prof Steven Goldman’s course “Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It.” The 24 lecture 12 hour audio course includes an outstanding course guide. The guide has course lecture summaries, biographic notes, a 12 page historic events timeline from 1543 to 2005, a glossary of terms, and an exceptional annotated bibliography. When he gave the lectures, Goldman was the Andrew Milton Distinguished Professor in the Humanities at Lehigh University. The course begins with a discussion of 17th century concepts of knowledge and truth based on religious doctrines and philosophic thought. Goldman next discussed 18th and 19th century age of reason notions of science based on Kant, Hume, and Locke constructs. He concludes the course with 20th century scientific advances based on Einstein, Bohr, and Kuhn concepts of science, historicity, and professional practice. His concluding lecture on truth, history, and citizenship is exceptional. (P)
April 10, 2024
This audiobook is basically a recording of a series of lectures. The speaker goes through the history of science chronologically, and how their thoughts and methods changed over time.
The contents were a bit meta for me. It focuses less on what we learned and how, and more about why we did science (was it to discover what was real in the universe?).
Overall, I found the book pretty dry, but if you're more of a science and history buff, this may be a great book for you.
The contents were a bit meta for me. It focuses less on what we learned and how, and more about why we did science (was it to discover what was real in the universe?).
Overall, I found the book pretty dry, but if you're more of a science and history buff, this may be a great book for you.
May 21, 2020
Listened to this book: not what I was looking for: was hoping for more of how these famous scientists came up with their fabulous ideas. Good info about the battle between 'religion' and 'science'; perhaps a bit too much natural philosophy.
September 21, 2020
Fascinating. Having already read Thomas Kuhn’s landmark work on scientific revolutions, this was very interesting as an exploration of the larger historical context for the debates about scientific knowledge.
October 19, 2020
This is a series of college lectures on the history/philosophy of science. I listened to it on audiobook. Professor Goldman was excellent covering the material thoroughly and in detail. His organization was clear and eminently useful and he made the material clearly understandable. Recommended.
December 22, 2020
A history of science? A history of philosophy? A history of the philosophy of science? It doesn’t matter. From Plato and Aristotle to modern quantum theory and everything in between, this series of lectures was thoroughly informative and enjoyable. Highly recommend.
February 13, 2018
Kudos to the author for writing in a way that I could understand it!
June 16, 2019
Although some parts a bit dated. This is a great primer on philosophy of science, particularly would be useful for scientists.
August 12, 2019
This is a great lecture series, highly recommended.
September 11, 2020
Seems like a good summary, but I'm really not sure how important the Science Wars were after reading it.
September 11, 2021
A truly excellent course.
February 7, 2023
Will admit that my mind wandered from time to time, but this was exceptional. Will listen again someday.
September 29, 2022
This book is an excellent look at how people pursue knowledge in the world. It discusses observation and experimentation. The philosophy of knowing, as it has been practiced for the last few centuries is well presented and discussed in this book.
June 29, 2015
From The Teaching Company. The professor, Goldman, is highly knowledgeable and tries to be engaging, but the listener (I listen to the lectures on my IPOD while on a walk, and then try to catch up in the course outline later), would benefit from some background in the history of scientific discovery. There are quite a few theories, arguments over theories, and scientists presented in the course of even a half-an-hour lecture. I would hate to have to take notes from these lectures and then even take an open note quiz on the lectures. Still, this course is sort of a necessary component to understanding modern Western intellectual history. Goldman is good at presenting the clashes over the interpretation of what science knows, how it knows it, and does NOT push the idea that science is the only source of knowing and the truth, but one source, albeit, an important one.
It was a very interesting course. Admittedly, half-way through I got bogged down. I don't have a background in science, so many of the people and their works were new to me. Similarly, many of the finer discoveries, concepts, arguments, went over my head. I also fell out over reading the course outline as I listened. I need to go back over that soon. However, the broader arguments, I felt I could grasp, especially the debates over what is knowledge and what is truth, within the scientific community. For those interested in exploring our understanding of knowledge and truth, albeit from the scientific realm, but then using that as a comparison with other knowledge-based communities, this would be a good course to explore.
It was a very interesting course. Admittedly, half-way through I got bogged down. I don't have a background in science, so many of the people and their works were new to me. Similarly, many of the finer discoveries, concepts, arguments, went over my head. I also fell out over reading the course outline as I listened. I need to go back over that soon. However, the broader arguments, I felt I could grasp, especially the debates over what is knowledge and what is truth, within the scientific community. For those interested in exploring our understanding of knowledge and truth, albeit from the scientific realm, but then using that as a comparison with other knowledge-based communities, this would be a good course to explore.
November 19, 2017
An excellent overview of the history, philosophy, and methodology of science. Given how often science has come into conflict with religion, philosophy, and more recently, political correctness, kudos to the lecturer for handling this material in a less than heavy handed manner and with a general lack of frothing at the mouth that sometimes typifies these types of debates.
For the record, I would lean more towards B) scientific knowledge is always provisional and tells us nothing that is universal, necessary, or certain about the world than A) science gives us objective knowledge of an independently existing reality. It might be a bit of an oversimplification to reduce it to those two options though. Some consider option B) to be a bug but others (like myself) consider it to be a feature. The beauty of science as a methodology is that it is able to revise itself when new information comes along.
For the record, I would lean more towards B) scientific knowledge is always provisional and tells us nothing that is universal, necessary, or certain about the world than A) science gives us objective knowledge of an independently existing reality. It might be a bit of an oversimplification to reduce it to those two options though. Some consider option B) to be a bug but others (like myself) consider it to be a feature. The beauty of science as a methodology is that it is able to revise itself when new information comes along.
February 8, 2022
Interesting course that is a very good starting point for further study of this aspect of the philosophy of science. A couple of things that stuck out for me was that in my opinion Goldman was a little too apologetic for the church on his discussion of the Copernican revolution and I don't fully buy the idea that scientists like Robert Hooke had good reasons to cling on to the theory of phlogiston.
Based on the opening I was also expecting to hear more about how the historical debate ties into the opposition to science we see in modern times but it felt like not much was said on this subject in the end and the connection felt spurious because of that. Just about the only part touching on it was the discussion of intelligent design which was good but also a very small part of the whole course.
Overall Goldman delivers a pretty balanced survey of the history and arguments surrounding scientific knowledge and ties it well into some significant discoveries in the history of science.
Based on the opening I was also expecting to hear more about how the historical debate ties into the opposition to science we see in modern times but it felt like not much was said on this subject in the end and the connection felt spurious because of that. Just about the only part touching on it was the discussion of intelligent design which was good but also a very small part of the whole course.
Overall Goldman delivers a pretty balanced survey of the history and arguments surrounding scientific knowledge and ties it well into some significant discoveries in the history of science.
August 24, 2015
Here is my take in a few points:
- The lectures seemed to be more of a chronology, where Mr. Goldman tried to squeeze in as much western philosophers as possible into the lectures. Thus it was more of an account/history/name dropping rather than a deep discussion of some philosophical topics of epistemology
- There has been a clear bias in only showing western thought on the topic, which is fine if the title was "Science Wars: What WESTERN Scientists Know and How They Know It"
- I did learn a lot about the who's-who of western philosophy of science and did enjoy the first few lectures.
- The lectures seemed to be more of a chronology, where Mr. Goldman tried to squeeze in as much western philosophers as possible into the lectures. Thus it was more of an account/history/name dropping rather than a deep discussion of some philosophical topics of epistemology
- There has been a clear bias in only showing western thought on the topic, which is fine if the title was "Science Wars: What WESTERN Scientists Know and How They Know It"
- I did learn a lot about the who's-who of western philosophy of science and did enjoy the first few lectures.
November 4, 2023
This is my second time. It gets better every time. A solid impartial historical take on the conflict in epistemology between the objective and subjective nature of knowledge, the universal and particular, modern and postmodern critiques, reason and faith, and more.
Update: a third time. This gets better each time.
Update: a third time. This gets better each time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews