Review by Booklist Review
A still unresolved debate about how science functions reaches back to the mid-twentieth century and pits Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery against Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Philosopher Strevens now enters the ring, writing accessibly and lucidly about this complex question. Popper claimed that science advances by falsification of theories, while Kuhn said that it progresses through sociological "paradigm shifts." Strevens declares both to be inadequate accounts of how science has been conducted and takes on the tricky question of whether science is subjective or objective. Ultimately, he presents his own theory of science's progress, the "iron rule of explanation," which he develops in light of those responsible for the scientific revolution: Bacon, Descartes, Boyle, and Newton, the last of whom marks "the decisive appearance in world history" of Strevens' iron rule, which is essentially the application of empirical experimentation to nature. Expanding his discussion to illuminate the work of contemporary scientists and today's most urgent scientific issues, Strevens offers a bold, lively, and intriguing new perspective on science's crucial devotion to facts and reason.
From Booklist, Copyright (c) American Library Association. Used with permission.
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
Strevens (Thinking Off Your Feet), an NYU philosophy professor, takes a scholarly look at how modern science arose with this erudite study. He begins by examining impactful explanations for the scientific method's success, chiefly Karl Popper's position that science is defined by a rigorous commitment to finding evidence opposed to, as well as in support of, one's own theories, and Thomas Kuhn's idea of scientific paradigms, or culturally dominant theories which scientists gain intellectual clout by subscribing to. After pointing out these arguments' flaws, he outlines his own "Iron Rule of Explanation," which sees "empirical testing" as science's defining principle. While modern scientists are still susceptible to error and bias, Strevens writes, the iron rule sets hard data as the foundation of their theories, and this sets their work apart from the ancient and middle ages'--often quite ingenious but less practically useful--natural philosophy. Strevens supports his arguments with historical examples, like Arthur Eddington's 1919 eclipse viewing intended to substantiate Einstein's theory of general relativity; he notes that Eddington took great care in the collection of data, but not, contrary to Popper, in considering contradictory or ambiguous evidence, nor, contrary to Kuhn, in adhering to previously established scientific consensus. For readers curious about why science works as well as it does, Strevens provides a convincing answer. (Oct.)
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review by Kirkus Book Review
An exploration of the period, beginning in 1600, "during which empirical inquiry evolved from the freewheeling, speculative frenzy of old into something with powers of discovery on a wholly new level." Throughout most of history, writes NYU philosophy professor Strevens, all cultures believed everything worth knowing was already known. Asked to explain the motion of the heavens, the nature of disease, or the makeup of matter, wise men in ancient Egypt, Greece, or China thought deeply and gave answers that were mostly wrong. The great leap forward came after about 1600 with the scientific revolution, which led to dazzling progress and continues to do so. There is no shortage of explanations of how scientists work. Strevens concisely summarizes the most prominent and gives them credit when he feels credit is due. Central to his thesis is what he calls the "iron rule of explanation," which denies that knowledge follows from thinking, logic, or infallible authority. Wise men in earlier times would have disagreed because they routinely mixed philosophy with observations, and their work was suffused with teleology: the belief that everything has a purpose. Aristotle taught that objects fall because their natural place is the center of the universe. The iron rule ignores what scientists believe and "makes no attempt to…decide winners and losers." It does not settle arguments but prolongs them by demanding an empirical test, one that all agree will provide useful evidence. "It is a rule for doing rather than thinking," writes the author. No political, religious, or philosophical reflection allowed; just the facts. Strevens emphasizes that the rule applies to communicating research findings, generally in a professional journal, and scientists remain free to express personal feelings and find deeper meanings. Many--perhaps too many--take advantage of this, writes the author, who provides a thought-provoking and likely-to-be-controversial explanation of how scientists finally got it right. One of the better examinations of the origins of the scientific revolution. Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
