Understanding Philosophy of Science

Rating:
Summary: Not bad, but not good enough...
Review: First things first: This is not a bad book. It approaches the philosophy of science in very general terms: Ladyman's terms are the layman's term, and I mean this as a compliment. But the book has also some serious flaws: It doesn't go into nearly enough detail to make it a useful textbook at university level; it is probably aimed at first-year students or high-school seniors who aren't quite sure what all this buzz about philosophy of science is about. It is difficult to imagine this book as the basis of a solid course in philosophy of science -- partly because the presentation is heavily biased by the author's main (research) interests. There are some original elements, but even those do not convince me that this book is better than any of the -- mostly excellent! -- introductions available, e.g. by Bird or Rosenberg. Also, the suggestions for "further reading" are of marginal usefulness, which after reading the book leaves one at a bit of a loss where to continue. Any serious reader would be better off investing into a good anthology, such as the Curd/Cover anthology "Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues", which also includes many good introductory chapters. Finally, there should be a ban on (supposedly funny or enlightening) dialogues with marginal relevance to the argument -- and more specifically a ban on calling the fictional discussants "Alice" and "Thomas" (for obvious reasons...)

Rating:
Summary: Read some real classics instead...
Review: There is no shortage of introductory philosophy books, and over the last ten years or so numerous books for undergraduates / beginning grad-school students have appeared, all of which claim to offer 'the' definitive survey of philosophy of language, metaphysics, epistemology... Well then, here is another introduction to philosophy of science -- no more, no less. Just like all other introductory texts, there are some omissions (some more serious than others), some errors and some unbalanced passages. However, the core problems are presented in a clear, though rather conventional way. If anyone with a serious interest in studying philosophy of science is reading this (let's call him 'Student' or, since analytic philosophers seem to enjoy abbreviations, 'S'), please let me say the following words: 'Dear S. Thank you for your interest in philosophy of science and in this book. Please don't waste your time reading *another* introductory textbooks. Go to your library, check out that Reichenbach, Duhem, Popper, Feyerabend, Hempel, Salmon, Achinstein, and *read the classics!*' They are infinitely more rewarding than this (or any other introductory) book. But if you feel you must add this book to your shopping cart -- who am I to stop you??

Rating:
Summary: An excellent introduction
Review: This is a more than adequate introduction to the subject, clearly written, sensibly structured and highly enjoyable. Philosophers frequently underestimate the degree to which the subject can be daunting even to the bright and enthusiastic beginner, and any introductory text must find a balance between thoroughness and accessibility. Ladyman's book does just that.

Rating:
Summary: An engaging, thought-provoking read.
Review: This is great introduction to the key issues that bother philosophers of science today - Ladyman has managed to really bring the subject alive.

Rating:
Summary: Psuedo-philosophy
Review: This text is hardly a survey of the philosophy of science. There is much inconsistency and personal bias in the presentation of ideas in philosophy of science which leads me to think it was written by graduate students. In particular, Ladymans presentation of Kuhns philosophy is problematic.

I hope the second edition shows more open mindedness.