Book Review: Philosophy of Science a Very Short Introduction / By Oxford University Press Inc. New York; Samir Okasha / 2002

The purpose of this review is to introduce and evaluate Samir Okasha's book "Philosophy of Science". Accordingly, this text is basically composed of three parts: introduction, body and conclusion. In the introduction part, the general structure and features of this review, and also the characteristics of the author and the book are briefly mentioned. The body section include in brief evaluation of the chapters of the book in separated paragraphs. On the other hand, the conclusion section, contains personal opinions and criticism about the book.

The author of the book, Samir Okasha has been working at the University of Bristol since 2003. He has led many research projects, published different works and lectured at many different universities. He briefly introduced himself in his biography as ‘I have broad philosophical interests, though most of my research falls into two main areas: (i) philosophy of biology / evolutionary theory; and (ii) epistemology / philosophy of science '(Okasha, 2016). http://www.bristol.ac.uk/school-of-arts/people/samir-okasha/index.html.

The book focuses on the fundamentals of philosophy of science. It aims to reveal the relationship between philosophy and science through the elaboration and questioning of some common concepts. The book has an important place within its own domain in terms of currentness, touching core themes, and presenting understandable examples to the reader.  Additionally, it basically based on seven different matters that are as follows: what is science, scientific reasoning, explanation in science, realism and anti-realism, scientific change and scientific revolutions, philosophical problems in physics, biology, and psychology and lastly, science and its critics. In addition, further reading and index sections are given.

The first chapter presented with the name 'What is science?' that actually explores what exactly makes something a science. In this context, experimental though, theory construction and observation techniques were mentioned. After, under the sub title of ‘the origin of modern science’, scientific revolution in Europe was referred with the names of Aristotle, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Darwin, Watson and Crick respectively. On the path of Aristotle, Copernicus presented an alternative to geocentric astronomy that termed as the heliocentric model. The main feature that distinguishes these two models is the centres of the systems. Copernicus located the Sun, and Aristotle located the Earth as the centre. Kepler opposed Copernicus's circular orbits idea and defended the elliptical orbits. Galileo, however, has a leading role in the telescope's invention. At the same time, Galileo introduced the law of free-fall, saw mathematics as a language that could be used to describe the behavior of actual objects, and stressed the importance of experimentally testing hypotheses. After Galileo's death, Descartes put forward a radical idea that described as ‘mechanical philosophy’. Accordingly, physical world consists simply of inert particles of matter interacting and colliding with one another (p. 5). Newton's masterpiece, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, was published in 1687. He agreed the ideas of Descartes and other mechanical philosophers and also took them one step further. He constructed the foundations of dynamical and mechanical theory based upon his three laws of motion and well-known universal gravitation. After Newton in 20^th century, two more revolutionary developments in physics occurred: first, relativity theory interested in massive objects and second, quantum mechanics interested in particles. After the publication of the ground-breaking work of Darwin 'The Origin of Species' in 1859, the theory of evolution was sought after. Then, in 1953, Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, and the field of 'molecular biology' emerged. This development gives rise to the Human Genome Project. Apart from these, it is possible to talk about other new scientific fields such as computer science, linguistic. Moreover, the main purpose of philosophy of science is described as follows in the first chapter: ‘to analyse the methods of enquiry used in the various sciences’ (p.12). Finally, the writer draws attention to the separation between science and pseudo-science, based on Popper's ideas. Accordingly, science must be testable, questionable and falsifiable. Freud's psychoanalytic theory and Marx's theory are included in this pseudo-science although Einstein theory is included in science.

The second chapter focuses on the scientific reasoning, how science has come to a conclusion. In this context, deduction and induction methods are discussed. The deductive method is described as relatively safe. However, the inductive method has been described as indispensable for everyday life. The book, which indicates that the inductive method is also used in scientific fields, exemplifies the diagnosis of Down syndrome and Newton's principle of universal gravitation. Despite, it is warned that a study using the inductive method should prefer the word 'evidence' rather than 'prove'. Under the subtitle 'Hume's Problem', David Hume's thoughts on inductive reasoning are included. According to him, ‘this was just a matter of brute animal habit (p.24)’. Additionally, the inductive method is used in the sense of 'uniformity of nature' (UN), but this is not always a guarantee. At this point, 'probability' has gained importance and the author concentrated this concept on the inductive method on the grounds that inductive method mostly insisted on probability of things. Another scientific inquiry method, 'inference to the best explanation (IBE) ' is also mentioned in the book that is second type of non-deductive inference.

Chapter 3 was presented with the name of ‘Explanation in Science’ and basically related to scientific explanation about world around us and some examples also given in the book. At that time Hempel’s covering law model of explanation was characterized. Hempel marked that scientific explanations often follow 'explanation-seeking why questions'. For example ‘why is the carth not perfectly spherical?’ (p.41). Hempel argued that scientific explanations for an argument should be a logical construct. To explain, an argument must first be constructed, which is located between premises and conclusion. Firstly, that argument should be in form of deductive reasoning. Secondly, premises should be true and thirdly, premises should include in at least one general law. This issue enriched with a dying plant example. Furthermore, the problem of symmetry is another topic that related to Hempel’s three-fold answering schema. This clarified with well-designed flagpole-shadow example in the book. Author also added that, ‘a good explanation of a phenomenon should contain information that is relevant to the phenomenon’s occurrence’ (p.48). Causality is in the matter of ‘scientific’ explanation of course important cornerstone. But, it could not valid all time because as book said ‘if x is the cause of y, then y in not the cause of x.’

Realism and anti-realism issues were examined in the fourth chapter. This issue was first looked at from the windows of realism and idealism. In short, while realism advocates that the outside world exists independently of a person's perception, idealism argues that the physical world is depend upon human cognition. However, because this issue is relatively a metaphysical subject, it is presented in the book under the title of realism and anti-realism as more related with science itself. In this regard, realists thought that goal of the science are producing true description to the world although anti-realists just interested in only observable part of the world. The proponent of the anti-realism believe that human power or knowledge about unobservable things is very limited could be false such as experiments about atomic structures are examples to unobservable part of the world.  The debate exactly arises from this separation. Moreover the ‘no miracle’ argument was mentioned also in the book with the laser example as reference point of realists. Obviously, the observable/ unobservable distinction is incorporated into topic in respect to opposing ideas of Van Fraassen and Maxwell.

The fifth chapter of the book is titled 'Scientific Change and Scientific Revolutions' that begins with complimentary reference to Thomas Kuhn's book ‘The Structure of Scientific Revaluations’. After briefly mentioning the historical process of logical positivism, the book said that logical positivism attaches much importance to mathematics, natural sciences, logic and objectivity in the matter of science. The two concepts that precisely separated by advocates of positivism are also described in the book. These are: 'context of discovery' and 'context of justification'. Author highlighted that ‘another important theme in positivist philosophy of science was the distinction between theories and observational facts (p.80)’. The structure of scientific revolutions is another topic of this chapter that was usually given with the concepts of Kuhn such as, normal science, paradigm, puzzle-solving, testing the paradigm, anomalies, revolutionary science and so on. Actually, likely said that the author discussed this chapter completely according to frame of Kuhn and his conceptualization under the titles of ‘incommensurability and the theory-ladenness of data’, ‘Kuhn and rationality of science’, and ‘Kuhn’s legacy’. In conclusion, Kuhn supported that non-cumulative picture of science, incompatibleness of old and new paradigm (that only could be partially), and no-algorithm for theory choice in science is almost correct. Additionally, in the rising of cultural relativism Kuhn has a significant role. Lastly, for more detail, reading original work of Kuhn is strongly recommended.

Chapter 6 took place in the book under the title of "Philosophical problems in physics, biology, and psychology". Unlike the referring of general philosophy of science issues in the book so far, this unit emphasizes some specific issues. First topic is about thoughts of Leibniz and Newton on absolute space. Newton bolsters up the ‘absolute time, space and velocity’, although argued ‘relationist conception’. Furthermore, ‘Newton believed that as well as relative motion, there is also absolute motion (p.97) ’, Leibniz rejected absolute space base upon principle of the identity of indiscernible (PII) that’s mean ‘if two objects are indiscernible, then they are identical’ (p.98)’. The 'rotating bucket' experiment that Newton did to support his own idea provided a good example that was given in the book. Second specific topic of this chapter defined as ‘The problem of biological classification’. Linnean taxonomic system (genuses, families, orders and so on) and opinions of cladists, pheneticis and evolutionary taxonomists on biological classification are mentioned. ‘According to cladists, biological classifications should try to reflect the evolutionary relationships between species, so knowledge of evolutionary history is indispensable for doing good taxonomy. According to pheneticists, this is not so: classification can and should be totally independent of evolutionary considerations. A third group, known as the evolutionary taxonomists, try to combine elements of both views (p.106)’.  Third subtitle is given as ‘Is the mind modular?’ that revolve around some main terms such as ‘general purpose problem solver or modular mind’ , ‘Noam Chomsky and his language theories’, ‘Jerry Fodor and his triangle model (domain-specific, mandatory, informationally encapsulated)’.

The last part of the book, chapter 7, is 'Science and its critics' that emphasized three particular philosophical critics of science. First is ‘Scientism’ which focuses on usage of science as a form of pejorative or approbatory labelling. Second was given under the title of ‘Science and religion’ that was basically about Galileo’s clash with the Catholic Church, theological opposition of Darwin, and historical process of that issue. Third topic was ‘Is science value free?’ that addressed some ethical dilemmas, value-free activities, neutrality and relation with other disciplines based upon ‘science’.

            To give a few personal opinions about the book, I think it is a great resource for those who have just started to get interested in philosophy of science. Unlike the complicated language used by other philosophical and science-based books, this book was supported by fluent and clear language style, detailed examples, and even related visuals. Although the theories and the researches of the individuals mentioned in the texts are in a complex structure, the book was able to present it to the reader in the most understandable way. The inclusion of visual representations such as illustrations, charts, graphs, and caricatures about Galileo, Copernicus, and Newton, Linnean’s works, theories and book and other methods, research, schemas that was very useful in terms of facilitating the reader's understanding and attention. In addition, I would like to emphasize that the arrangement of the units and subjects was well thought. It was a very good method for the reader to mention the first, the basic ones, and then the complex ones. With all these features, the book likes a capsule containing useful, concise information for the reader. It is another congratulatory feature of the book that it mentioned the names and works of famous scholars interested in the specific subject, and t both common and conflict points on that issue. Thus, the number of question marks remaining in the mind of the readers minimized by this technique. At the same time, this situation also contributed greatly to the fact that the subject was more permanently located in the reader's memory. For me, it was the greatest achievement of the book that providing a harmonic structure to contrasts ideas, thoughts, and theories in the reader's mind for each context. But as a single negative critique, I can point to the fifth chapter. I found the concept too much Kuhn-based, I thought it was far from original. It could be enriched with more resources.