Science and Relativism : Some Key Controversies in the Philosophy of Science (Science and Its Conceptual Foundations series)

Rating:
Summary: Great introduction to modern epistemology
Review: The book is structured as a transcript of a debate between philosophers attending a symposium on the role of science and relativism; each represents one of the major epistemic positions -- logical positivism, pragmatism, realism, and relativism. They don't come to a unified conclusion, of course -- what else would you expect from philosophers? -- but in the process of the discussion, a lot of core issues in modern epistemology are covered in a way easily accessible to a layman. The discussion is generally framed in terms of relativistic position on various epistemic issues, and each opposing philosophical scheme's counter to such.

This book is the best introduction to modern epistemology that I have ever read. It is relatively small, which is a blessing, even though the writing is simple as far as philosophical texts go; and it is deep enough to both inform, and stimulate further meaningful inquiry. I would stongly recommend this book to anyone approaching epistemology and philosophy of science for the first time.

Rating:
Summary: Abstruse, not for the layman
Review: This book is supposedly written for those ouside of the field of philosophy science proper. Unfortunately, unless you have a Ph.D in philosophy and already know alot about the philosophy of science, this book will do nothing but confuse you. I recommend you avoid it like the plague. Laudon does not define any terms, even basic ones such as who is a relativist, who is a positivist, what is underdetermination, etc. He just assumes you know what they mean. Sorry, Mr. Laudon, but most non-philosophers of science do not know what these terms mean. He also presupposes you know who Kuhn, Quine, and other key figures are as well as the theories they have expounded. Laudon imbues his writing with so much esoterica that it is virtually inaccessable for those non-philosophers of science for whom he is intending to write. Not only that, but the format of a dialog makes the key issues even harder to understand. Once you think you understand what they are discussing, one character points out a weakness and they may go off on tangents and sub-tangents for several pages. These digressions could be briefer so as not to send the reader too far afield. If you are looking for a clear, lucid introduction to the philosophy of science without all of this pedatry, look instead to Peter Kosso's Reading the Book of Nature.