There is increasing debate within and
between various disciplines of the health sciences about philosophical
underpinnings pertinent to both research and to professional practice.  We were once persuaded that an empirical
(empiricist) model was sufficient to guide our knowledge endeavours.  More recently we have looked to wider
philosophical discussion and debate for greater diversity in approaches to
knowledge and research.

People once believed a fabulous engine
called the Scientific Method harvests empirical evidence through observation
and experimentation, discards subjective, error ridden chaff, and delivers
objective, veridical residues from which to spin threads of knowledge.  Unfortunately that engine is literally
fabulous.  Lacking a single method whose
proper application always yields epistemically decisive results, real-world
scientists make do with messy, quirky techniques and devices for producing and
interpreting empirical data which proliferate as investigators improvise fixes
for practical and theoretical problems which bedevil their research.  Their evolution is punctuated rather than
linear – marked as much by abandonment and modification of previously accepted
tools and techniques as by conservation and accumulation.  p.128.

One of the
greatest privileges of being a student is to be able to hear professors with
life-long experience in their field introduce then current state of progress in
their field to a group of novices.  The
experience is even more exhilarating when the professor assumes the audience to
be intelligent and able to search out more information once they have been
introduced to the field in question.  As
a student I remember sitting in a number of such introductory lectures.  Even now, it is inspiring to hear someone
articulately introduce their field without underestimating the intelligence of
their audience — a difficult feat. 

This is one such
introductory book.  The editors set out
to offer an introduction to the ideas debated in the philosophy of
science.  They set themselves the task
of drawing together scholars (both well-established and younger) who review the
topic, assess the current state of research and then predict the emerging debates.

In 15 chapters the
book covers a large range of topics. 
Initially, and somewhat to my surprise, I found that it does not offer
chapters on the central figures or theories of the philosophy of science (eg
the Positivists, the Empiricists, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend etc).  Rather, it tackles the field from the
perspective of ongoing and emerging debates, and individuals and their ideas
are contextualised within these discussions. 
As such, then, this is a book that does not cover the well-trodden
ground of others but succeeds in keeping its discussion lively and current.

Following a
historical overview and a review of some of the classical debates and standard
problems, the book moves quickly on to wider overview questions for the
philosophy of science such as the place and role of explanation in science, and
emerging views on the structure of scientific theories.  Central ideas such as reduction, the place
and use of metaphors, models and analogies, the role and interpretation of
experiment and observation, and issues such as induction and probability are
discussed.  These are all part of
ongoing debates in the field. 

A number of fields
in which there has been significant transformation of debates through
interaction with philosophy are allocated chapter length space.  These include issues such as space-time,
quantum mechanics, evolution, molecular and developmental biology and cognitive
science.  Recent debate has also
developed significantly in a number of other areas such as the social sciences
and feminist philosophy of science, each of which also receive a dedicated
chapter.

As one expects
from Blackwell, the book is of uniformly high quality.  The chapters vary significantly in their
accessibility to those with little background in philosophy of science.  Some chapters offer an immediate step into
the discussions, which can be followed by most general readers.  Other chapters assume a little more
background understanding, and some require quite significant mathematical /
logical skills.

I have made margin
annotations in almost all of the chapters in my copy — where the authors have
drawn my attention to a new way of understanding an issue or where they have
offered a succinct summary of a debate. 
My attention has been drawn to new examples and to wider ways of
grasping the problems being explored.  I
have found myself struggling a little at times (particularly with the more
heavy mathematically based material) and at other times enthralled at the succinct
ways the authors have engaged me into the debate. 

… 
old questions and topics … have not disappeared.  Philosophers of science still puzzle over
what makes a good explanation, what kind of evidence provides what kind of confirmation
for theory, and what is the difference between science and pseudo-science.  These are the perennial questions of the
philosophy of science.  (p.12)

All in all, at
times challenging but overall a worthwhile book, opening the field in new ways.

© 2003 Erich von Dietze

Erich von Dietze,
PhD, Chaplain, University
Counseling Services, Curtin University, Australia

Categories: Philosophical