Reddit Reddit reviews The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

We found 34 Reddit comments about The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

History & Philosophy of Science
Science & Math
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Used Book in Good Condition
Check price on Amazon

34 Reddit comments about The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:

u/Pelusteriano · 81 pointsr/biology

I'll stick to recommending science communication books (those that don't require a deep background on biological concepts):

u/anastas · 22 pointsr/askscience

My main hobby is reading textbooks, so I decided to go beyond the scope of the question posed. I took a look at what I have on my shelves in order to recommend particularly good or standard books that I think could characterize large portions of an undergraduate degree and perhaps the beginnings of a graduate degree in the main fields that interest me, plus some personal favorites.

Neuroscience: Theoretical Neuroscience is a good book for the field of that name, though it does require background knowledge in neuroscience (for which, as others mentioned, Kandel's text is excellent, not to mention that it alone can cover the majority of an undergraduate degree in neuroscience if corequisite classes such as biology and chemistry are momentarily ignored) and in differential equations. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory and Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology were used in my classes on cognition and learning/memory and I enjoyed both; though they tend to choose breadth over depth, all references are research papers and thus one can easily choose to go more in depth in any relevant topics by consulting these books' bibliographies.

General chemistry, organic chemistry/synthesis: I liked Linus Pauling's General Chemistry more than whatever my school gave us for general chemistry. I liked this undergraduate organic chemistry book, though I should say that I have little exposure to other organic chemistry books, and I found Protective Groups in Organic Synthesis to be very informative and useful. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to take instrumental/analytical/inorganic/physical chemistry and so have no idea what to recommend there.

Biochemistry: Lehninger is the standard text, though it's rather expensive. I have limited exposure here.

Mathematics: When I was younger (i.e. before having learned calculus), I found the four-volume The World of Mathematics great for introducing me to a lot of new concepts and branches of mathematics and for inspiring interest; I would strongly recommend this collection to anyone interested in mathematics and especially to people considering choosing to major in math as an undergrad. I found the trio of Spivak's Calculus (which Amazon says is now unfortunately out of print), Stewart's Calculus (standard text), and Kline's Calculus: An Intuitive and Physical Approach to be a good combination of rigor, practical application, and physical intuition, respectively, for calculus. My school used Marsden and Hoffman's Elementary Classical Analysis for introductory analysis (which is the field that develops and proves the calculus taught in high school), but I liked Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis (nicknamed "Baby Rudin") better. I haven't worked my way though Munkres' Topology yet, but it's great so far and is often recommended as a standard beginning toplogy text. I haven't found books on differential equations or on linear algebra that I've really liked. I randomly came across Quine's Set Theory and its Logic, which I thought was an excellent introduction to set theory. Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica is a very famous text, but I haven't gotten hold of a copy yet. Lang's Algebra is an excellent abstract algebra textbook, though it's rather sophisticated and I've gotten through only a small portion of it as I don't plan on getting a PhD in that subject.

Computer Science: For artificial intelligence and related areas, Russell and Norvig's Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach's text is a standard and good text, and I also liked Introduction to Information Retrieval (which is available online by chapter and entirely). For processor design, I found Computer Organization and Design to be a good introduction. I don't have any recommendations for specific programming languages as I find self-teaching to be most important there, nor do I know of any data structures books that I found to be memorable (not that I've really looked, given the wealth of information online). Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming is considered to be a gold standard text for algorithms, but I haven't secured a copy yet.

Physics: For basic undergraduate physics (mechanics, e&m, and a smattering of other subjects), I liked Fundamentals of Physics. I liked Rindler's Essential Relativity and Messiah's Quantum Mechanics much better than whatever books my school used. I appreciated the exposition and style of Rindler's text. I understand that some of the later chapters of Messiah's text are now obsolete, but the rest of the book is good enough for you to not need to reference many other books. I have little exposure to books on other areas of physics and am sure that there are many others in this subreddit that can give excellent recommendations.

Other: I liked Early Theories of the Universe to be good light historical reading. I also think that everyone should read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

u/MorbidPenguin · 14 pointsr/GradSchool

Off the top of my head, I would recommend The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn and The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan.

The former is an excellent summary/treatise of how science works and what brings scientific revolutions about. The latter is an excellent intro to critical thinking. It's quite anti-religious, though, so that may turn you off.

u/ROM_Bombadil · 10 pointsr/Christianity

I agree that some sort of reason is required to make a leap of faith, but I still call it a leap because such a reason would be more social/psychological (What is my motivation to do this?) or aesthetic (does this provide a more elegant perspective of the universe) but since neither of those are based on logic or induction, I can't really call them rational reasons. They're simply explanatory reasons.

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, my personal epistimology here is highly influenced by Concluding Unscientific Postscript and Philosophical Fragments (Kierkegaard) as well as the Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn.

u/moreLytes · 6 pointsr/Christianity

> At first black holes were just a concept that was possible.

So, in order to repair your non sequitor, you have translated it to the 18th century. I would suggest that your example might have been improved had you chosen something relevant to modernity (see: M-theory).

> In 2010 a theory was published and peer reviewed that said that black holes could be wormholes to other universes. Scientist do not widely accept this or other alternate theories of black holes. They believe (because they cannot know) that black holes are collapsed stars.

Do you really believe that our understanding of black holes, or any topic of science, is a matter of taste? Do you really know so little of philosophy of science, and the practical establishment of scientific consensus?

> I do see secondary evidence [for theism] such as the universe, DNA, the precise strength of gravity to support life, the precise strength of the strong nuclear force to support life, the nearly unique properties of water.

Surely you can appreciate that a unifying characteristic of cosmogony, abiogenesis, and the origins of physical constants is scientific ignorance. So why are you so eager to connect that trait to your faith? Do you not understand how such a commitment is demonstrably hazardous to scientific literacy?

> My theory is that god exists and much like John Michell and Simon Pierre LaPlace in the 18th century I am waiting for science to catch up.

The mechanism by which science "catches up" is known as experiment.

What experiments could be performed to corroborate the existence of God?

u/mattyville · 4 pointsr/Economics

Some of my favorite (non-textbook) economic books:

u/[deleted] · 3 pointsr/evolution

You want a study about how science is studied?

Try reading "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" by Kuhn. It is one of the best overall views of how science works. It outlines why the current system works, identifies a few problems with the current system, and discusses some alternative methods that have existed.

u/jello_aka_aron · 3 pointsr/atheism

Well... yes and no. When your views/findings contradict the views and findings of the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community you tend to have a hard time getting traction, yes. That's part of how it works. The other part, however, is that ultimately the truth is in the data. If the data is good it will win out in the end. Others will come along and check your results, usually with the intent to get you to shut up and move on to helping address what almost everyone else says is important. Then, sometimes... not real often, but sometimes they find out the unpopular weirdo thing that crazy guy was talking about actually is true/works.

Read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for an in-depth look at this topic. Oftentimes it takes the old-guard literally dying off for the new model to truly take hold, but ultimately science is about the data and whatever construct best fits the available data is the one that will be used.

u/Laughing_Chipmunk · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

Good post. I must say i follow a similar train of thought considering most matters you have discussed. It seems scientific thought plays a big role, and hence would be wise to understand the philosophical stance of science, or at least the attempts that have been made to understand it. A book i haven't read yet, but will embark on soon is titled What is this thing called science which as far as i'm aware is the go to introduction to philosophy of science text, also among universities. Also there is a good series on youtube that i've watched which covers some of the main ideas in philosophy of science such as inductivism, deductivism, paradigm theory and systematicity. That's a good watch, ~ 12 lectures that go for about an hour or so each. I can give you the lecture slides if you want. Also in relation to philosophy of science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is also very popular in which Kuhn puts forth paradigm theory.

u/breisdor · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

Check out The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. It is a great book and would be sure to give you a few topics to write about.

u/dstone · 2 pointsr/science

In case anyone was too lazy to look it up.

It's fairly cheap too!

u/AFNMFH · 2 pointsr/Keep_Track

*SNAP* Yep, this one's going in my cringe compilation.

\>Cherry picking studies and datasets to fit an agenda under a thin facade of academia certainly takes some brain power.

Accuse the enemy of what you already do yourself, a classic. Left-leaning/Leftist academics selectively publish/approve articles that conform to their worldview regardless of the veracity.

Also, you have not cited anything; your argumentation is entirely based on emotions. Pathos, quite literally pathetic.

Continue to reject scientific data that does not conform to your worldview; it is normal.

Pick up a copy of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It is the foundation for the widely cited and accepted notion that science is not a progressive act in the way it is commonly perceived. Even scientists will reject or fight with data that does not match their existing narrative about the world.

P.S. I've got another common part of reality for you to reject.

Dogs and other animals can be selectively breed to produce specific behavioral traits. Humans are animals with close ties to other mammals (you do not seem to be a creationist to me). In this study a group of wild foxes were domesticated within roughly 40 years. There is nothing shocking about groups of humans that have reproduced separately for several hundred to thousands of years having different traits.


u/VixennRadio · 2 pointsr/ScienceTeachers

I took a class in college called "Scientific Revolutions" about the shifts in scientific paradigm throughout history. One of the textbooks in the course was The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn. It was rather enjoyable and extremely informative. I wish I kept my copy. Amazon has a bunch of related suggestions as well.
Perhaps this will spark some ideas?

u/TempusCavus · 2 pointsr/MovieDetails

Since we are talking about expert based evidence courts use the Daubert test.

Now it still has an element of the bandwagon fallacy, so it's not best for determining actual truth.

Then there is the problem of induction which implies that actual truth from scientific testing may not be obtainable because all science relies on induction.

The next place to go to is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions which I think anyone who is interested in epistemology should read. The take away for this discussion is that scientific consensus is ever changing and while it is not perfect it does give rigorously tested guesses. And as long as a theory can make valid predictions then there is no reason to not accept it, but it should never stop being questioned. Mere skepticism gets you know where besides solipsism. Skepticism with scientific rigor allows you to make predictions that, while flawed, result in cars, computers, rockets, medicine etc. etc.

Physical evidence is derivative of science because the the methods used to test physical evidence are based in scientific theory. So, the same logic applies

My personal approach is a factors test that looks at such things as:

Whether it makes logical sense, Probably the weakest factor, but it helps to weed out logical errors first.

Whether it passes scientific rigor, Scientists do a good job of testing things repeatedly to see whether a theory works practically, in addition to logically. Some areas of science are more trust worthy than others. Always check what bias my exist in the scientist. Always follow the money.

How many other assumptions do I have to make to get to? This is a variation on Occam's razor. The more assumptions I have to make to get to the conclusion the less likely I am to believe it.

I don't believe I have perfect knowledge. I do believe I have practical/working knowledge. And if something happens in the next five minutes that changes my assumptions then I'll change what I believe.

u/jacobheiss · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

Sure, I personally know of many examples; that's why I mentioned it before. Also, your second paragraph did not seem remotely offensive to me; it just sounded like you were trying to clearly articulate your point! In response, I think there might be two helpful things to raise at this point before going into specific examples:

  • There is a difference between critical inquiry and what I guess I'd call mere criticism. For example, scientists are perpetually engaged in critical inquiry, testing both the results of and also the basis of their discipline, but they are in general disinterested in mere criticism--exploring whether or not science is loopy or of any value whatsoever. I think you may be mistaking this difference in the way you address religion, but a parallel set of conditions obtains. I know very few religious people who engage in mere criticism of religion (although there are some out there!), but I know of quite a substantial number who engage in critical inquiry.

  • It sounds like you may be transferring a lot of your personal experience with religion to other people's expressions of their experience. This might not be the case--you may actually be encountering a lot of people who engage in pseudo-critical thought about their religious beliefs--but I'd wager that this sentence is bordering a self-fulfilling prophecy in the strictly, psychological sense of the term:
    > when I read of how people "question their faith" I see a similarity. I see myself in their words. So far, I haven't seen anything deviate from this.

    Two concluding caveats; despite how frequently this point is raised in debate, it is not substantial:

    > a dozen religions believe contradictory things

    The way this is usually developed to merely criticize religion is like saying "because a dozen philosophies or aesthetic theories or anthropological worldviews believe contradictory things, they are all wrong." Just because two different religious loci make wildly different claims does not mean that they are both equally, wildly incorrect. On the other hand, this is a very good point:

    > some of these "self-criticisms" are no better than a person who's in love with someone who is emotionally abusive towards them but they can't bring themselves to leave. Any sort of "evaluating the relationship" is simply a joke. Any example of misconduct is explained away by rationalizing that "but everything else is OK and it feels good on top of that."

    I think what we are dealing with here is something that is not specific to religious belief but to any belief that is radicalized in the case of religion. This was part of the point Kuhn so famously made in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, that there is a strong effect of personal bias and comfort and perceived upheaval in the way that any discipline develops. In other words, I would absolutely grant your point that a lot of religious people are sub-critical and self-deluded when it comes to their reflections on their own religion, but I would attribute this to a condition of humanity in general given its prevalence in other realms of rational endeavor and not just as something particular to religion.

    Perhaps this is so obviously prevalent in the case of religion for two reasons:

  • Religion necessarily deals with things close to the bone. There's a lot at personal stake for most people when it comes to whether or not Jesus rose from the dead circa 30 CE, but there's little personally at stake for most people when it comes to whether Marc Anthony married Cleopatra circa 32 BCE. It's more difficult to be critical about beliefs that are "close."

  • We live in a society that rarely speaks openly and pointedly about religious matters. Hence, people have difficulty treating them as a "subject" of a debate or a study without taking things very, very personally. This has been the case in the past for other disciplines in other contexts; for example, it is said that the followers of Pythagorous threw one of their own out of a boat to drown when he demonstrated that the square root of two was an irrational number. People take their religion much more personally now than they take their mathematics; hence, they tend to be ill-adept at a healthy sort of critical inquiry when it comes to religion in general.

    Nevertheless, I maintain that there are a lot of religious people who are healthily critical of their own beliefs.
u/taanews · 1 pointr/Christianity

Thank you for your response and for the citation of the text.

As I argued above from multiple texts across the Old Testament, slaves were to be treated as human beings. To take Leviticus 25:44 which belongs to the same body of work as contradictory to the other texts above (where I also noted that slaves were allowed to be taken in war), due to vesting a modern notion of “being property” into the text is to interpret anachronistically. To point it out from the 10 commandments as you ask:

> “but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. On that day you must not do any work, you, your son, your daughter, your male slave, your female slave, your ox, your donkey, any other animal, or the foreigner who lives with you, so that your male and female slaves, ‘like yourself’, may have rest. Recall that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there by strength and power. That is why the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.”
(Deut 5:14–15 NET)

Consider this as well: Israel has the law and knows the true God. If you are a slave there are many harsh places in the world that you could go, but if you go to Israel you have legal protections, and become acquainted with God.

Regarding applying moral notions to God, I wrote above. God doesn’t reserve rights for himself so much as dispense any rights anyone else has. That’s the Creator/Creature distinction.

Regarding DNA and paleontology, draw what conclusions fit with what is authoritative for you according to your worldview. Read Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. For myself, science is great as natural revelation filling in special revelation, but something subject to paradigm shifts is shaky foundation for a philosophical basis.

Regarding Adam & Noah, forgive my simplicity but Jesus believed them (Matt 19:4-5; Matt 24:37-39), and I trust him more than any man’s guesses since he’s God and he made them. I am still in r/Christianity right? This is the right place to post this? If you rather believe that you are assessing science’s assessment of the data correctly (layered as that is from the original data), that’s your decision.

As I said in another comment on this post, once we get off the Christian concept of God what is even the point of considering the OP’s question? I mean if Jesus isn’t God, Adam & Noah aren’t real, the Bible isn’t an accurate account of God, then what does it even matter if God can deceive or not, seeing as such a being likely doesn’t exist anyway?

The question only matters within the context of Scripture: does Scripture present a God who is indistinguishable from the devil? The answer is no. If we are going to be picky about what Scripture we are allowed to inform that interpretation by invoking science, why not just invoke science to disallow the concept of God and be done? If you want to debate the Bible’s reliability there are places for that, but that wasn’t the original question.

Thanks for reading. Let me know if I can clarify

u/SampleBins · 1 pointr/IAmA

Yes, Einstein didn't like that quantum mechanics could only predict probabilities, and he figured that a deeper understanding would give rise to a more deterministic theory. A lot more research has been done since he said that, and unfortunately he died so there's no way we'll ever know if he would have changed his mind when faced with more evidence. That being said, there are still a lot of unanswered questions and we still don't have a theory of everything so maybe Einstein was right. We don't know.

But we're talking about science, not scientists, and Einstein's opinion on the matter didn't dictate what research showed in the years after his death. Physicists come up with theories and test them, and if they stand up to scrutiny, these ideas are adopted until something better comes along. If a theory isn't supported by the evidence, it's rejected- regardless of what the original proponent of the theory thinks. Therein lies the magic of science. New generations reject ideas that have overwhelming evidence against them.

I don't need to tell you that this doesn't happen with religion. The Bible, for example, directly contradicts itself in countless ways and describes events that we know are physically impossible, but is still considered to be inerrant by conservative Christians who may have been born hundreds of years after a given Biblical assertion was shown to be monstrously implausible.

If you're genuinely curious about how paradigm shifts happen in science, you might like to read Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It's considered the definitive work on the matter, and it's interesting, easy to read, short, and inexpensive.

u/stoic9 · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

Vetting "good" philosophy sources can be tricky. After my students get a basic idea of some topic from wiki, I usually sent them to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

For basic terms you might try A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names. But keep in mind that sometimes people use terms rather oddly so sometimes it's best to just ask them to define how they are using them.

Then you might want to read some books related to the topics you are interested in. For example, if you are interested in the history or philosophy of science you might pick up The Structure of Scientific Revolutions or some other works in that area.

Basically dive in and start reading about the things that interests you, then try to bring that knowledge to the table...or use them to ask questions and get more help.

u/kevthill · 1 pointr/askscience

Things are a bit different for hearing, but the "such and unexplored area" feeling will be the same. For reference, this is what science is.

OH, also read Thomas Khun's, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions only 200 pages, and you'll probably get the point around page 50. Best book on human knowledge ever.

u/glennfish · 1 pointr/EmDrive

In the context of learning, essentially what you are proposing is what Thomas Kuhn proposed as a paradigm shift. If you haven't read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" you and everyone should. It's available at amazon

However, the premise that Kuhn proposed was that it took a generation of scientists to die away before the new ideas had a chance to emerge. When he wrote the book, that was probably true, but in the present, in many disciplines, the ability to change a paradigm has gone from 30 years to 18 months, so it may not be as relevant as it was when written.

As to the premise of I'll believe it when I see it, that seems more to be a license plate slogan, i.e. Wisconsin "Just cows and cheese."

The simple fact of the matter, and my returning to this forum after an absence, is that there is a very high risk now of creating false expectations instead of revolutionary discovery. In my other OP thread, there is commentary showing me to be a defender of test results from a methodological perspective, which ultimately turned out to be subject to falsification.

I am not capable nor qualified to argue the physics side of this. I am absolutely qualified and capable of arguing the social psychology side of this. My simple premise is this. Looking at this from a philosophy of science point of view (it's a real academic discipline), the debate in this forum has gone from wonder and excitement to pathological. The physics doesn't support this. The experimentation doesn't support this. The 7,000 odd subscribers to this forum have to understand that this is approaching a pathological and near theological debate comparable to Scientology or hollow earth beliefs.

There are some competent and highly qualified individuals doing best efforts research into the EMdrive phenomenon, and some of them have the capacity to produce results, if positive, deserve scrutiny. However, IMHO, this reddit forum at this time with the commentaries posted, with the lame debates posted, does not contribute to those who wish to learn and know more.

Essentially, there are no plausible arguments for EMdrive, and no theoretical models that extend beyond crack-pottery. There are some interesting experiments in process that may push for a closer look, but none of them have come to fruition.

I am trying to take the high road and simply state that EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, and in Physics, EVERYONE is entitled to a poster presentation, however, in the end, data has be replicated and scrutinized and beat to death and is the only thing that contributes to an extension of what we think of as knowledge. EMdrive hasn't yet gone beyond the poster presentation stage.

u/drinka40tonight · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

You're right: the amount of texts out there is daunting, so it can be hard to find the right area that appeals to you. Maybe a little more about the issues and questions you're interested in would help narrowing the options down a bit.

Two books that might be worth looking at: Proofs and Refutations by Lakatos. It looks at math and advances a thesis about what "proving" in math is really about.

And, Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn. It looks at the development of science through history and puts forth a provocative thesis about how science develops.

Take a glance at those, and see if they are up your alley. They are not too difficult, but they aren't really intro texts.

u/Facewizard · 1 pointr/books

Read "The structure of scientific revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn.

The definitive book on academic disagreements, how and why they happen, and what they're good for. You will find it interesting and probably eye-opening: academics disagree all the time, but only when their accepted common beliefs no longer make sense and they've run out of productive research to do together. The book itself is about scientists, but many of his ideas can be applied to other disciplines as well.

u/undergroundsadalien · 1 pointr/AskReddit

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn. Maybe not the book that has influenced me the most, but definitely one that jumped to mind immediately when I read this thread.

u/tennanja · 0 pointsr/askscience

We DON"T know that, its just every time we check on them (do experiments) the results come out that in such a way that makes us think that the laws that we have deduced from previous experiments still hold true. The interesting thing about scientific paradigms is that we do something, then see a result and then try to come up with an explination of why that result happened, the better our explanation explains the result and explains other results and survives repeated testing the better our explanation is to determining how the world really works, from which we can do things that build on our explanation.

This in the end does allow false assumptions to exist in science (think phlogistion chemistry) but as the field of science requires more complicated and complicated excuses for why different events happened, they are replaced with a new paradigm that explains the physical world differently.

In the end we may find at some point down the road something that scientists believe an unquestionable rule of physics is actually incorrect because it cannot explain X,Y, or Z but a new explanation comes forth and explains the stuff the first law explained and X,Y, or Z, in a better, cleaner way.

To read more I suggest : The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn

u/Elliot_Loudermilk · 0 pointsr/newjersey

This has been a respectful back and forth, and I appreciate that. This will be my concluding comment.

> Religion has been the single greatest force limiting advancement in human history

This is the claim of the likes of Sam Harris. And this was the point that Nassim Taleb tried to make to him, although quite clumsily- religious thought has greatly contributed to building the Western world. For example, much of science has it's foundations in the presumptions produced by a religious worldview. Religion provides answers to existential questions that need to addressed before any scientific inquiry can be made. For example, one must have the presumption that the world is intelligible and comprehensible before engaging in scientific inquiry. If you don't start with that presumption, you cannot do science.

If you're interested in learning more about the philosophical presumptions that form the basis for scientific inquiry, check out The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn


u/WhackAMoleE · 0 pointsr/Advice

Intro to physics. Ok, how about how at the end of the 19th century, we thought we knew how everything worked, and all we needed to do was fill in the details. Then the quantum revolution happened. This is a great historical example of what Kuhn called a paradigm shift. In fact you might want to have a look at The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Four bucks used on Amazon.

u/caboosemoose · 0 pointsr/atheism

Except this idea is just wrong. Suggested readings:

How the laws of physics lie

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Realism and the Aim of Science

I'm not here to get into a debate on the philosophy of science, nor do I have any time for revealed religions. But science is an investigative quest, and suffers from its own sociological conundra. And much what science is isn't actually trying to be true, which is fine; an empirically accurate approximation is quite serviceable enough most of the time. But the bottom line of that is there is no reason to believe that in replaying it the same models would have to be produced.

u/SugaShaq · -1 pointsr/canada

For a brief introduction to the normative narratives in Science read the following: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

When you have read that, then the last time you checked Science will have had normative narratives. Then we can continue our conversation.

u/FrancisCharlesBacon · -1 pointsr/TrueChristian

The Dictionary of Christianity and Science by Paul Copan, Tremper Longman III, Christopher L. Reese, and Michael G. Strauss. In one volume, you get reliable summaries and critical analyses of over 450 relevant concepts, theories, terms, movements, individuals, and debates on how Christian theology relates to scientific inquiry. It goes over the competing philosophies of science, and asks if they “work” with a Christian faith based on the Bible. Featuring the work of over 140 international contributors, the Dictionary of Christianity and Science is a deeply-researched, peer-reviewed, fair-minded work that illuminates the intersection of science and Christian belief.

Author Gerald L. Schroeder (widely known for converting atheist Anthony Flew to a Deist), Number 5 here was what convinced Flew. It's worth pointing out though that he conforms his theories to the current scientific paradigm of the age of the universe and strives for compatability when it comes to other areas like Pre-Adamite cave men. He is strongly against evolution and lays out why very thoroughly in his books. He is also Jewish.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn. Kuhn makes a well-reasoned argument that science is not an objective search for "truth," as many people believe. Instead, "normal science" is a problem solving endeavor, solving known problems by known methods. Science only changes the rules by which it operates (its "paradigm" - that over-used and often misused term in contemporary language) only when the current paradigm causes more problems than it solves. This is the real answer to any from any field who say, "The science is settled. There is no room for discussion." Those who make that statement need to re-read Kuhn and come to grips with the reality that all knowledge is inevitably socially constructed. An excellent resource that looks seriously at natural phenomenon in light of Scriptural revelation. They attempt to meet the skeptics own burden of proof by using established scientific methods. An important claim of theirs is that evidence always has to be interpreted. In the evolution vs. creationism debate for instance, there is no such thing as evidence with big bright letters stating that "this is a transitional fossil". There are not creationist fossils and evolutionist fossils, but there are creationist and evolutionist interpretations of the fossils. Charles Darwin himself made this point. In the introduction to The Origin of Species, he stated, “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived.” Darwin was willing to admit that interpretation was key to choosing a belief. One scientist might view a particular fact as supportive of naturalism; another scientist might view that same fact as supporting creationism. I'd also point out the difficulty in in defending the young earth stance as it requires you to lay out all the arguments exhaustedly (which answersingenesis has done). Not only do you have to call into question the current scientific viewpoints but you also have to put forward the alternative theories. You have to do all this while your debate opponent can just sit back and appeal to authority and the current scientific consensus.

When Skeptics Ask by Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks. Contains a good general overview of science and Christianity along with some other great chapters that answer quite a few questions that have been brought up by biblical skeptics.


Because Reddit leans liberal, and most Christians have not done a deep dive into the philosophy of science, they accept evolution without much thought. That's why you see them promoting people like Christian Francis Collins who created and attempts to reconcile Biblical narrative with evolution. Never mind that the attempts of Dr. Collins are thwarted by Scripture contradicting the evolutionary timeline.

It's important for people to realize that science is based on axiomatic assumptions that requires faith. These assumptions turn into glaring flaws when trying to develop truths about the past like macroevolution and should significantly reduce the certainty one has regarding it.

It's also important to remember that the Bible is not written as a scientific document using the standards of our own recent methodology (the scientific method). Over history what we have seen are Christian's assumptions of the world that we live in by taking (often times vague) verses from Scripture and interpreting them. A good rundown of this is here.

For a more exhaustive (but not complete) overview of books related to intelligent design, see this page. It's worth noting though that like Natural Theology, some intelligent design authors get you only half way there (i.e.. Theism). The rest would have to be done by studying comparative religion.

u/ziziliaa · -3 pointsr/Shitstatistssay

It's relevance is that it educates you about the prehistory of humanity, the neolithic revolution and the beginning of civilization where class society and private property first appear. To understand what Marxism is you must understand the basics first. I would also recommend you the following books if you want to understand the philosophical basis of Marxism, dialectical materialism which is essential:

Quantum Social Science by Emmanuel Haven, Andrei Khrennikov

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
by Thomas S. Kuhn

Ubiquity: Why Catastrophes Happen by Mark Buchanan

Non of these authors are Marxists as far as I know but they are following in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, who developed the logic of dialectical materialism out of philosophical inquiry into the natural world.