Book review

A book review on: Understanding Philosophy of Science.

Reviewed by: Abraham Berhane, Addis Ababa University School of Commerce, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia,: March 2013
James Ladyman is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Bristol, co-editor of The
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science and formerly the Honorary Secretary of
The British Society for the Philosophy of Science.
He was part of the Best of Bristol Lectures in 2010 and 2011 and gave brilliant lectures
entitled 'Philosophy - why bother?'. Professor Ladyman has authored three books, more
than 30 articles, numerous book reviews and is currently writing the fourth book Philosophy and Physics. His 2002 book - Understanding Philosophy of Science, was
awarded the Choice Outstanding Academic Text Award. In 2005, James Ladyman
received the prestigious Philip Leverhulme Prize in Philosophy.
Science is historically an intensely debated and hotly discussed topic. Consensus is
hard to achieve in science; ideas are diverse concerning even the definition of science,
let alone the true meanings and interpretations of scientific discoveries, experiments
and philosophies. But these disagreements, arguments and continuous attempts to find
a better explanation, reasoning and logic are exactly what have been driving the
progression of science from art to art form. In Understanding Philosophy of Science,
James Ladyman explores different ways of looking at science through the prism of life
by citing various scientific experiments and highlighting examples from history.
The book is arranged in two major sections, the first on the scientific methodinduction
and inductivism, falsificationism, and revolutions and rationality; and the second on

Page 1

Book review
realism and antirealism. Suggestions for further reading are provided at the end of each
of chapter, and a five-page glossary of terms is included.
The author in his the first chapter of the book aims to show the skeptic challenges of
inductivism. Ladyman also gives us an insight how to maintain and satisfy the
conditions expressed in the principle of induction. We must take care to observe the
world and without preconception, so as to be in a position of following the scientific
method and our resulting beliefs to be justified. In addition to this the author address
about the new tool of induction which was designed by Francis Bacon (15611626),
who explicitly proposed a method for the sciences to replace that of Aristotle under his
book Novum Organum.
Under the second chapter, James Ladyman indicates the problem of inductions and
inductivism. The author point out the controversial idea of Humes in induction which
could not go parallel with scientific method of knowledge which most philosophers have
not been satisfied with his skeptical naturalism and various strategies which have been
adopted to solve or dissolve the problem of induction and they could able to follow his
thought. Hume said that the conclusion of an inductive argument could always be false
no matter how many observations we have made.
Under the third chapter, the author deeply discussed regarding to the alternative theory
of the nature of the scientific method, and the grounds for the demarcation of science
from non-science, called falsificationism. According to the book, Karl Popper had a
considerable influence on philosophy of science during the twentieth century and many
scientists took up his ideas in relation to falsificationism. Popper argued that science is
fundamentally about falsifying rather than confirming theories, and so he thought that
science could proceed without induction because the inference from a falsifying
instance to the falsity of a theory is purely deductive. Poppers main concern is to
criticize pseudo-science because its adherents try to persuade people that their theories
are scientific. In fact, Popper thought that both Marxism and psychoanalysis might
embody important insights into the human condition; his point is just that they are not
scientific, not that they are therefore not valuable.
Page 2

Book review
According to Poppers view, there are two contexts in which he investigates the history
of science and the story of how certain theories come to be developed and accepted,
namely the context of discovery and the context of justification. The chapter discussed
also the search for the scientific method has led us from the nave inductivism of Bacon,
which is an account of how to develop scientific theories, to the falsificationism of
Popper, which is exclusively concerned with the testing of scientific theories once they
have been proposed.

After all, scientists might be inspired by their religion, their

dreams, and their metaphysical beliefs or even by blind prejudice when they are
developing new theories. For this reason, the context of discovery is outside the domain
of rationality; however, the context of justification is subject to the constraints of
rationality, and this is supposed to guarantee the objectivity of scientific knowledge.
The fourth chapter of the book addresses the issue of revolution of science and its
rationality. Kuhns revolutionary history of science seems to argue that science is both
non-inductive and non rational. This chapter mainly talks about his account of theory
change in science and the philosophical issues it raises. Kuhn realised that the situation
was considerably more complex, and he argued that the history of this and other
revolutions in science was incompatible with the usual inductivist and falsificationist
accounts of the scientific method. His philosophy of science has influenced academia
from literary theory to management science, and he seems single-handedly to have
caused the widespread use of the word paradigm. The Copernican revolution which is
advocated by Galileo again the Catholic Church around the early seventeenth century.
This seems to have inspired many of Kuhns ideas.
The fifth chapter began with the distinction between appearance and reality. The
physicist Arthur Eddington makes the distinction between appearance and reality
conspicuous with his famous discussion of two tables. And it also explains the
background of the contemporary debate, and the different components of scientific
realism. The debate about scientific realism is closely related to the general issue of our
knowledge of the external world in the history of philosophy.
Page 3

Book review
In the six chapter, the author wrote about the concept of undertermination and he also
mentioned how to avoid underdetermination of a correct theory by availing sufficient
data in order to determine whether several theories is true. In the first part of the
seventh chapter, the author considered the nature of scientific explanation, and in the
second part he assessed the use of inference to the best explanation to defend
scientific realism.
The last chapter of the book discussed, Ladyman also considered arguments for
various kinds of antirealism, which are motivated by careful scrutiny of the practice and
history of science, rather than by epistemological scruples. In different ways, facts about
real science raise the question what should we be realists about?. As we have seen,
in the debate about scientific realism, arguably the two most compelling arguments
around are the no miracles argument, and the pessimistic meta-induction.
Generally, James Ladymans book clear and engaged in introducing the philosophy of
science, the author also explores the philosophical questions that arise when we reflect
on the nature of the scientific method and the knowledge it produces. He claims
whether fundamental philosophical questions about knowledge and reality might be
answered by science, and considers in detail the debate between realists and
antirealists about the extent of scientific knowledge. Along the way, central topics in the
philosophy of science, such as the demarcation of science from non science, induction,
confirmation and falsification, the relationship between theory and observation, and
relativism, are all addressed. Important and complex current debates over
underdetermination, inference to the best explanation and the implications of radical
theory change are clarified and clearly explained for those new to the subject.
What I found most laudable about the book is the unique vantage point from which
science and its theories are explored. It is not explaining what a scientist did or how
he/she did it; instead, it explains how scientists think and how they draw conclusions.
What is the correct way to make conclusions? What has been driving science and what
has led to scientific revolutions? What is the future of science? And also the book is for
Page 4

Book review
students of science with no prior knowledge of philosophy, as well as students of
philosophy, who have no experience with science.
During my review, I had observe one limitation that is, the author addresses topics with
a depth analysis that will engage advanced students as well as working scientists and
philosophers which might ignore other possible audience readers other the field his
carrier.

Reference
1. Biography

of

James

Ladyman.

Retrieved

http://www.fruni.org.uk/lecturer/professor-james-ladyman)

Page 5

March

26,

2013,from