Reddit reviews Science, Truth, and Democracy (Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science)

The best intro I'm familiar with is Theory and Reality by Peter Godfrey-Smith. That's what I use for introductory courses.

Other than that, here are a few other things that (depending on your interests) might be worth your time. These are probably best read after you've gotten some exposure to the basics, which Theory and Reality should more than suffice to achieve. In no particular order:

• Philip Kitcher's Science in a Democratic Society and/or Science, Truth, and Democracy both directly address how to reconcile the value of science with other things that we might also value. Kitcher's a naturalist through and through, but he's also quite pluralistic in his thinking. Both those books tackle the question of what science is good for, what it isn't good for, and how we might go about integrating scientific expertise into an egalitarian society.
  
  
• Nancy Cartwright's A Dappled World. This is a very, very widely-cited classic, and a must-read at some point. I don't agree with her thesis, but it's an excellent book and is very well presented.
  
  
• Bas van Fraassen's The Scientific Image. Another classic that's been very influential. Again, I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he writes clearly and makes many great points.
  
  
• Stathis Psillos' Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. A clear, cogent defense of scientific realism.
  
  
• James Ladyman and Don Ross' Every Thing Must Go. A spirited and unflinching defense of what philosophy as a whole should look like if it wants to take science seriously. It's not an easy book if you're not well-versed on physics, but it's one of my favorites.
  
  
• Eric Winsberg's Science in the Age of Computer Simulation. A great look at how advances in computation are changing what science looks like. This is a personal interest, but I still think it's a great book.
  
  
• Tim Maudlin's The Metaphysics Within Physics. A look at laws, explanation, and metaphysics from the perspective of physical theory.
  
  
• Michael Strevens' Depth: An Account of Scientific Explanation. One of the best books on scientific explanation (and what makes it distinctive) around. Long, but worth it.
  
  
• Oppenheim & Putnam's article "The Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis". Flawed, but on the right track. A good discussion of how the different sciences fit together.
  
  
• Jerry Fodor's article "Special Sciences (or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis)" a counterpoint to Oppenhein & Putnam, and another very influential article. I don't like Fodor very much, but it's a good piece.
  
  I could go on indefinitely with this, but that's probably more than enough to keep you going for a few years. As an aside (and since you mentioned complexity already), I also recommend that anyone interested in the philosophy of science take a look at Cliff Hooker's anthology The Philosophy of Complex Systems Theory, which is (somehow) currently hanging out online for free. I paid something like $200 for the book, and while I think it was worth it, the fact that the PDF is right there is amazing. It's an incredibly wide-ranging look at some of the ways in which both philosophy and science are being shaped by complexity theory these days. It's really great.

You'll want to check out Phil Kitcher's Science, Truth, and Democracy. He addresses the realism vs. constructivism debate in the first chapter and comes out strongly on the side of realism, arguing directly against a number of anti-realist theses (while conceding a few minor points).

Personally, I've had phases of being a militant realist and a militant anti-realist. In the longer run though, I've come to think that both sides have good points to make, that the truth is more complex than either side is would have us believe, and that a strong allegiance to one side or the other will cause the student to tune-out as much information as they tune-in. Such is the nature of the 'ism' and the adversarial academic philosophical climate.