Kuhn vs. Popper

Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science (Revolutions in Science)
Author Steve Fuller
Country United States
Language English
Series Revolutions in Science
Subject Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper
Published 2003 (Columbia University Press)
Media type Print (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages 160
ISBN 978-0231134286

Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science is a 2003 book by sociologist Steve Fuller, in which the author discusses and criticizes the philosophers of science Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. The book, published by Columbia University Press, received several negative reviews, but was also made Book of the Month by Popular Science magazine.

Summary

Fuller uses the 1965 meeting between Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper, in which they discussed the philosophy of science, as a point of departure to discuss how their respective philosophies have been received by the media, the public, and scholars.

Reception

Academic Rupert Read called the book worthless, and wrote that it presented an over-simplified and distorted view of both Popper and Kuhn.[1] The Economist wrote that the book was not thorough enough to be convincing.[2] The mass circulation US magazine Popular Science made the book Book of the Month in February 2005.[3] A UK-based website, also called 'Popular Science' but bearing no relation to the magazine, wrote that "Fuller rightly points out some of the flaws in both Popper and Kuhn's approach", but added that he wasted an opportunity to explain the philosophy of science in a way that ordinary readers would find useful.[4]

References

  1. ↑ Read, Rupert (September 2005). "Book Review: How and How Not to Write on a "Legendary" Philosopher". Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 35 (3). pp. 369–387. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
  2. ↑ "Book Review: Kuhn vs. Popper". The Economist. Aug 7, 2003. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
  3. ↑ Gregory Mone (2005-02-01). "(Not Quite a) Rumble in the Theoretical Jungle". Popsci.com. Retrieved 2017-01-23.
  4. ↑ "Book Review: Kuhn vs. Popper". 266 (2). Popular Science. February 1, 2005. p. 89. Retrieved 2008-10-10.

Reviews


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.