This book explores multiple philosophical lenses of understanding science. It cites examples from history, presents different philosophical schools and their thoughts, agreements and disagreements among the philosophers on nature of science. It also attempts to evaluate different ideas, merits of scientific discoveries in shaping philosophy of science, and find a comprehensive philosophy of science.

The book begins with the chapter ‘What is Science?’ It deals with the history of science starting from ancient Greece and takes the reader through the work and experiences of Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Darwin, Watson and Crick. 

Author introduces the famous Philosopher of science, Karl Popper and his theory of falsification. Popper argues that the fundamental feature of a scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable.

He cites Marx and Freud’s theories as examples of not-falsifiable or pseudo scientific claims and Einstein’s theory of gravitation as an example which satisfies the criterion of falsifiability. Of course, Popper’s theory has its own limitations which was explained through Adam’s and Leverrier’s theory and examples from the field of astronomy which is completely based on prediction and later become the truth. Hence, this demarcation of science and pseudoscience is not justified.

The author concludes that it is possible to find some common features shared by sciences and not by anything else. This search of common features was addressed by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein’s example of a game. There is no fixed set of features that can define a particular field including science.

In the second Chapter, author discusses about scientific reasoning and its methods like induction, deduction, inference to the best explanation, and probability. A scientific theory is derived from either deduction or by induction. The author explained that deductive reasoning is much safer as we can be certain that if we start with true premises, it will end up with a true conclusion. Here the writer mentions a crucial aspect that although deductive reasoning is confirmed still we rely more on inductive reasoning.

In conclusion it is induction that is mostly the basis of constructing scientific theories. Author makes his point citing examples from daily life and other fields of science. In his first example, he writes, “The first five eggs in the box are rotten. All the eggs have the same best before date stamped on them. Therefore, the sixth egg will be rotten too.” This seems sensible. But no one exactly knows how the sixth egg will turn out to be.

The second example talks about Down’s syndrome. Children with Down’s syndrome have an extra chromosome, but have the scientists examined that all the Down’s syndrome children possess an extra chromosome? Answer is not. They examined a large number of Down’s syndrome children and they induced their theory. The problem with theory of induction is that it is based on the assumption that all objects of the same kind behave similarly which is again a matter of great discussion. At this point it is very difficult to say which method is more acceptable. Subsequently, he also examines Hume’s problem of induction. When dealing with the Hume’s problem of induction, the writer brings all the answers from different perspectives. But not a single answer is treated as the only true solution to the problem. Here we have to make our own decision. I also liked the discussion on different interpretations of probability.

Focusing on Scientific explanations, Chapter three starts with a discussion of Carl Hempel’s famous “covering law model explanation” which states that scientific questions are usually ‘explanation-seeking why questions’. But in science looking for explanation is not as simple as we think, as all scientific explanations do not fit in this model. Hempel mentioned another philosophical doctrine known as ‘empiricism’ where focus is to understand the link between concepts explained and causality.

Author explains, how science is described and asks if science can explain everything? In spite of all the progress made in science, it is not possible that science can explain everything. Because to explain one factor, many other factors will be involved and we have to work on those too and this series continue. So, while answering a question another question comes into being. Author mentions other ways like explanation and reduction designed for explaining different types of phenomenon in science.

Chapter four introduces to the debate between realism and anti-realism. Realism holds that the physical world exists independent of human thought and perception. It is the world which is not observable by human or the unobservant part of the world. While anti- realism believes in the observable part of the world. The believes of anti-realist poses a problem as in the field of physics, astronomy we talk about entities like atom, molecules, electrons, protons, quarks etc. which are not observable. Interestingly, author also mentions the field of paleontology which engages with both the ideas i.e. studying of fossils is observable while the evolutionary history is based on the unobservant part.

Focusing on the changes that come in science with time, Chapter five mentions Thomas Kuhn’s ‘The structure of Scientific Revolution’. For positivist, science is paradigmatically a rational activity due to its objectivity. Normal science is ordinary science activities which is highly conservative and never try to refute the existing paradigm. But over the time when earth shattering discoveries take place and confidence in the existing paradigm break down, new paradigm is accepted and this marks the beginning of a period of revolutionary science. The acceptance of this new paradigm depends on how forcefully it is advocated by others. This is also observed in our daily classroom experience where same answer by multiple students make an assumption that the answer is correct.

Chapter 6, draws readers attention to philosophical discourse around disciplines like physics, biology, and psychology. In physics, there was a debate between Newton and Leibniz on “absolute space”.  Similarly, in biology between cladists and pheneticists. In psychology there are tussle between two schools of thoughts. One considers that the human mind is modular and another considers human mind is non-modular. Evidences are presented for both sides. E.g. Noam Chomsky’s model that there is a part of the brain that specializes in language acquisition only.

The book concludes with a discussion on problems in science and critiques of Scientism. It is undeniable that science gives technological capabilities. However, worshiping science (scientism) and unquestionable surrender to what scientists tell is deeply problematic. Scientific imperialism believes that science is capable of answering all important questions about man and nature. A comparative study between science and other fields like social science, economics, anthropology etc. is also presented. It is believed that natural science is in more advanced stage than social science because natural science is objective in nature while social sciences are more subjective. Methods of natural science are superior and more reliable.

A discussion on tussle  between science and religion is presented citing Galileo’s clash with Catholic church, Darwin’s theory of evolution with the book of Genesis and introduction of concept of creation science in school to teach religion and discard evolution theory. Lastly, author delves into the question, Is science is value-free? In the concluding remark, author added that science occupies so pivotal role in our life that it will always find itself subject to criticism from a variety of source and it is a good thing to be critical for this and ask question ‘is science a good thing?’

Note for readers:

• To know more about modularity of mind read Jerry Fodor’s ‘Modularity of Mind’.

Samir Okasha (2016). Philosophy of Science: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.