Philosophy of Science

Veeky Forums, I'm a science student who wants to better understand the rationale behind the scientific method and general empiricism in science. Is it reasonable for me to study the philosophy of science with no prior philosophical background? If so, could you recommend me some good introductions to the field? Thanks in advance.

Are you interested in the basics like positivism, Popper, maybe a tiny bit of Kuhn, etc., or in the weird shit that makes Kuhn look like Science Is Gay 101?

Ideally, I'd like an introductory text that covers all of the fields philosophy of science dips into, and includes some history/basic arguments.
>r in the weird shit that makes Kuhn look like Science Is Gay 101?
I'd definitely like to hear more about whatever this is.

What science are you studying, what do you hope to achieve with your studies in the field of science?

And no, the philosophy of science (all philosophy really) should be a priori intuitive

I'm studying chemistry and biology currently, but considering switching to physics. What do I hope to achieve? I want to study research. If I can make any sort of novel discovery that's actually published, no matter how small, I'll be fairly happy about it. I want to expand knowledge for knowledge's sake. Also, getting enough money to live on would be nice too.

check out kuhn's -- the structure of scientific revolutions

OP the only true answer is to start with the presocratics.

i.e. the Greeks

kuhn and feyerabend are the way to go. and no u dont need anyting as a prerequisite.

if you find those interesting you can go further with mannheim and dilthey

>Is it reasonable for me to study the philosophy of science with no prior philosophical background?
Not really, but you're free to give it a go.

Start with Ayer, and then move onto Popper and Kuhn. Finish with Feyerabend and the contemporary analytics.

Of course you're better of starting with a more general introduction to the history of thought, critical thinking and epistemology.

>I'm studying chemistry

Get the fuck out of this field while you're still ahead.

do you think it can ever be fully comprehended what an electron is? Or a photon?

>Is it reasonable for me to study the philosophy of science with no prior philosophical background?
No.

This

And pic related. I believe the scientists has sections on both popper and kuhn as well.

You know, it's funny.

In my New Atheist days, I saw a video of Dawkins taking questions in a lecture or something. He was asked by a Philosopher of Science what place he thought Philosophy of Science had in the modern day - to which he said that he considered Philosophy of Science to be a non-subject, on par with astrology/etc.

That was actually what awoke my interest in philosophy, that very moment where Dawkins dismissed an entire field of study so readily and offhandedly.

Hume is a fantastic starting point for understanding the problems that later plague the philosophy of science, particularly his critique of induction. If you choose to jump straight into it, Popper is probably closest to the scientific method implicit in stem. Popper isn't particularly good though as his idyllic scientific method does not work in practice and is logically inconsistent.

Thomas Kuhn blew him out by noting the social factors that dictate the progression of science. Then check out Lakatos.

Feyerabend's Against Method is the most important but should be read last. To boil it down, science subscribes to methodological anarchy and should ultimately embrace it. Hf user

Not sure on intro stuff, unfortunately. Sorry yo.

Philosophy of science teaching is kind of split between wo camps. One camp is filled with "perennialists" or neo-whiggish types (not a bad thing!), who genuinely want to know more about "how science works," but who fundamentally know it DOES work, and who are mostly concerned with actually doing science. These types are often analytics who have a genuine passion for science itself. If they criticise it, it's often to clear obstacles in its way, or prevent it from getting entangled in ethical problems etc.

The other camp is more humanities- or philosophy-oriented. I think many of them passionately care about science too, and many have hardcore scientific backgrounds. But their admiration is more often on a higher (i.e., more abstract) philosophical sense of idealism. Idealism in the German sense of charting the history of the "realm of thought." Many of the guys in this camp are also postmodernists, deconstructionists, etc., who are ambivalent about, or even hostile toward science, out of a fundamental dislike of the Enlightenment project, scientism, optimistic rationalism, and so on.

Both groups have great thinkers obviously. But on a lower level, often all you'll encounter from the first group is a brief skim of positivism, Popper, postpositivism, etc., with a nod toward Kuhn and similar thinkers. Usually a very stereotyped image of Kuhn as a kind of stand-in for all forms of relativism, with the implicit moral of the story being "we have to be careful about getting tunnel vision or being assholes in doing science, but mostly, it just werks." And on a similar low level, all you'll encounter from the second group is a kind of smug anti-science relativism or cynical pessimism.

Both have a lot to offer, but it's a lot harder to get into both since most people tend toward one or the other. Most STEM-oriented people are just not gonna enjoy deep soul-searching meta-epistemology of science, pretentious crap like Bruno Latour (who is a cunt), and most humanities-oriented people are gonna be shit at math practical science and math.

You should always be aware what's out there though. Especially if you want to be a high level research guy and deal in concepts.

tldr, just read Feyerabend he's a bro

As a biologist read Dupre if you want up to date philosophy as he is a philosopher of biology. Where most philosophers of science take a more physics route. Also if you have the cajones read Whitehead.

From my point (philosopsy student) there is no way to go deep into science philosophy without Basic knowledge. Basic question was asked by greek and it is good to start from them (maybe Platon ans his problem of knowledge will be good). And i think if u really want to go into it u should enroll for some course of philosophy.

...

Slightly unrelated, but I've been reading a bit of history of science, which you'd probably find interesting too.
David Wooton's The Invention of Science and Derek De Solla Price's Science Since Babylon are pretty fun reads in that regard. Also has some tidbits related to phil of science.

>pretentious crap like Bruno Latour (who is a cunt)
That's sad, the rest of your post was quite good until that

And to add on that, most of people which I know are genuinely hating Latour are from humanities. I talked and am still talking with a lot of physicists, chemists and biologists who rather like how Latour talk about them.

The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, search it on libgen

This is a good introductory book.

I like Latour personally, and what I do is equally pretentious if not worse

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't looking like a stereotypical "the humanities have so much to teach you STEM plebs" douche

I'm reassured then! And to speak honestly, I perfectly understand how people can find Latour style of writing pretentious (and I happen to share this opinion from time to time). Nonetheless, liking him or not, he's a big voice in the nowadays' question. Personally I find him rather funny, but some smirky sentences quickly ignites things in the academical world

That Bill Nye statement is absurdly contradictory.

I recommend reading Descartes, Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon, and Galileo to get a good sense of the philosophical underpinnings of the institution of science.

What is the source of that picture?