Steve Fuller

Kuhn vs Popper

I'm not totally convinced about the value of 'A vs B' books. The author always seems to construct two people to fit his arguments rather than the other way around. In this case I'm not convinced either that Popper 'lost' the battle with Kuhn. Maybe in the world of 'science studies' Popper might need a defender, but in a wider context I feel that his falsificationism is alive and well.

But despite all that I feel that Fuller's 'Kuhn vs Popper' is definitely worth reading, as it isn't just a narrow look at the work of two philosophers, rather it is a wide ranging discussion of why the philosophers of science seem to have argued themselves into a corner, giving an optional commentary on science, rather than an opinion on how to improve it. Furthermore it is written to be read by non-specialists, and so is very useful in helping those of us who are confused by the direction philosophy has taken to sort things out in our minds.

Fuller looks at the work of both philosophers and discusses how he thinks they have been misrepresented. He also demonstrates how past philosophies may be aligned in the debate. Fuller goes on to show how philosophers of science are often those who are on the losing side of scientific debates, and uses the term 'Tory history' of science to represent history written from the point of view of how things should have been. The book also looks at the development of univerities - are they a place for the development of ideas or are they simply for imparting the accepted view to the next generation?

Amazon.com info

Paperback 240 pages
ISBN: 1840467223
Salesrank: 2316972
Weight:0.49 lbs

Published: 2006 ICON BOOKS (FABE)

Marketplace::Used from $19.99

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Paperback 240 pages
ISBN: 1840467223
Salesrank: 351721
Weight:0.49 lbs

Published: 2006 Icon Books Ltd

Marketplace::Used from £11.82

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Paperback 240 pages
ISBN: 1840467223
Salesrank: 328672
Weight:0.49 lbs

Published: 2006 Icon Books

Amazon price CDN$ 12.41

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 12.41:Used from CDN$ 62.82

Buy from Amazon.ca

Good introduction ****
I recently considered starting an MSc in Philosophy of Science and decided to read something simple to gain some idea about the subject. I chose this book because the compulsory module for this MSc involves reading a lot about Kuhn. I did have some of Kuhn's books, but decided on something much simpler that I could easily read in a week. The book is hard-going in places because for the layman, there are many unfamiliar terms used. Fortunately there is a glossary towards the end of the book which helps. This book gave me an insight into the work of Kuhn and convinced me that the philosophy of Science being discussed should be called Sociology of Science. This was enough to persuade me that I didn't really want to put the time, money and effort into studying for the stated MSc. It is fitting that Steve Fuller is a sociologist, as much of the content is really about the sociology of Science.

Good introduction ****

I recently considered starting an MSc in Philosophy of Science and decided to read something simple to gain some idea about the subject. I chose this book because the compulsory module for this MSc involves reading a lot about Kuhn. I did have some of Kuhn's books, but decided on something much simpler that I could easily read in a week.

The book is hard-going in places because for the layman, there are many unfamiliar terms used. Fortunately there is a glossary towards the end of the book which helps.

This book gave me an insight into the work of Kuhn and convinced me that the philosophy of Science being discussed should be called Sociology of Science. This was enough to persuade me that I didn't really want to put the time, money and effort into studying for the stated MSc.

It is fitting that Steve Fuller is a sociologist, as much of the content is really about the sociology of Science.

Not for the lay person **
I found this book difficult and verbose. It may well be an excellent examination of the issues, but even armed with my degree in psychology, some knowledge of the subjects raised, and an open mind, I really struggled to understand the arguments and conclusions. Feels to me like this book is for serious and informed enthusiasts and post-grad students only. Lay people with a general interest in the history of science will be bamboozled by this text from the outset, which reads like a series of articles from professional journal, not a book for a wider audience. NB This is an observation, not a criticism!

Not for the lay person **

I found this book difficult and verbose. It may well be an excellent examination of the issues, but even armed with my degree in psychology, some knowledge of the subjects raised, and an open mind, I really struggled to understand the arguments and conclusions.

Feels to me like this book is for serious and informed enthusiasts and post-grad students only. Lay people with a general interest in the history of science will be bamboozled by this text from the outset, which reads like a series of articles from professional journal, not a book for a wider audience. NB This is an observation, not a criticism!

Suggestive but biased ***
This is a richly suggestive study that despite its faults deserves attention. The central thesis that science is out of kilter is passionately argued and grounded in a neat contraposition of the social duties of science as seen by Kuhn and Popper respectively. Fuller eloquently expounds how Kuhn's vision of science as a paradigm-dictated activity as opposed to the open-ended justificatory process of falsification espoused by Popper leads to abandonment by scientists of their social responsibility towards society and vice-versa. This is the most successful aspect of the work. However, it is the passion with which Fuller argues that leads him astray. Essentially, he tries to juggle three lines of thought simultaneously: The misrepresentation of Kuhn and Popper respectively; the real Kuhn and Popper; and his own thesis that Kuhn's view of scientific practice is both false and pernicious to society and science. Unfortunately, Fuller is too often swept along dangerously by his own eloquence. As mentioned by a previous reviewer, Chapter 7 fails to answer the question posed by Fuller himself; his analysis of falsificationism fails to take proper account of its technical weaknesses(especially Feyerabend's critique but also Sokal's); his pitiless denunciation of Heidegger is miserably referenced from a philosophical viewpoint--he omits all mention of Gilbert Ryle's early and important review of Sein und Zeit, which greatly impressed Ryle from a purely technical point of view--yet Fuller tells us that this work was "the paradigm case of incoherence"; Fuller's aversion to Heidegger leads him to obscure the importance of the genetic fallacy and the fanciful obituary he proffers of Heidegger clearly underlines his failure to trace Heidegger's development from scholasticism to phenomenology to existentialism out of purely philosophical concerns. In short, Fuller's sociological slant fails to do justice to technical philosophical aspects. There are also one or two points of detail that require attention. Fuller refers, for example, to the "pious Jew, Job". Had he read the Book of Job carefully, he would have realized that Job is presented as the archetypal "good man" and clearly not specifically as a "Jew". On a purely linguistic level a couple of points: the editors have followed neither American nor British spelling practices. Hence we find "behaviour, organise" with the British spelling but the American "toward" rather than "towards". Either one would be fine but not an eclectic mix of both. Fuller also chooses to emasculate the male chauvinist practice of ubiquitously using masculine pronouns instead of the feminine, by religiously applying the female chauvinist practice of exclusively using the feminine, rather than "he or she/she or he" "him or her/her or him" which would only require at most 5 more letters and would be far more equitable and less jarring on the reader, especially as, with the exception of one reference, all the figures discussed in the book are male. Perhaps Fuller's ethical concerns might extend to language. Moreover, Fuller sometimes finds himself overwhelmed by the full flush of language: he tells us how Kuhn's work "seeded" (a sociological cliché) the "current waves" of "postmodern...thought". Surely, a moment's fore-or afterthought would have brought out the absurdity of this mixed metaphor: you can "seed" "crops" or "harvests" but hardly "waves"! Yet, so much is modern rhetoric enamoured of itself (especially the technical jargon of the social sciences) that the original purpose of academic argument i.e to communicate clearly is laid to one side. It is this same rhetoric that tends to drive Fuller's judgemental self, when a more subdued tone would have done better. Moral indignation in inappropriate contexts leaves the reader with the impression of self-righteous ranting. Since Fuller himself insists on the importance of origins it might be reasonable to hazard a guess that Fuller is a lapsed Catholic influenced by the social theology emanating from Vatican II. Criticism notwithstanding, Fuller's book is worth reading for his persuasive account of the ills of modern science, the more so as it tends to run counter to the received wisdom of the day.

Suggestive but biased ***

This is a richly suggestive study that despite its faults deserves attention. The central thesis that science is out of kilter is passionately argued and grounded in a neat contraposition of the social duties of science as seen by Kuhn and Popper respectively. Fuller eloquently expounds how Kuhn's vision of science as a paradigm-dictated activity as opposed to the open-ended justificatory process of falsification espoused by Popper leads to abandonment by scientists of their social responsibility towards society and vice-versa. This is the most successful aspect of the work.

However, it is the passion with which Fuller argues that leads him astray. Essentially, he tries to juggle three lines of thought simultaneously: The misrepresentation of Kuhn and Popper respectively; the real Kuhn and Popper; and his own thesis that Kuhn's view of scientific practice is both false and pernicious to society and science.

Unfortunately, Fuller is too often swept along dangerously by his own eloquence. As mentioned by a previous reviewer, Chapter 7 fails to answer the question posed by Fuller himself; his analysis of falsificationism fails to take proper account of its technical weaknesses(especially Feyerabend's critique but also Sokal's); his pitiless denunciation of Heidegger is miserably referenced from a philosophical viewpoint--he omits all mention of Gilbert Ryle's early and important review of Sein und Zeit, which greatly impressed Ryle from a purely technical point of view--yet Fuller tells us that this work was "the paradigm case of incoherence"; Fuller's aversion to Heidegger leads him to obscure the importance of the genetic fallacy and the fanciful obituary he proffers of Heidegger clearly underlines his failure to trace Heidegger's development from scholasticism to phenomenology to existentialism out of purely philosophical concerns. In short, Fuller's sociological slant fails to do justice to technical philosophical aspects.

There are also one or two points of detail that require attention. Fuller refers, for example, to the "pious Jew, Job". Had he read the Book of Job carefully, he would have realized that Job is presented as the archetypal "good man" and clearly not specifically as a "Jew".

On a purely linguistic level a couple of points: the editors have followed neither American nor British spelling practices. Hence we find "behaviour, organise" with the British spelling but the American "toward" rather than "towards". Either one would be fine but not an eclectic mix of both. Fuller also chooses to emasculate the male chauvinist practice of ubiquitously using masculine pronouns instead of the feminine, by religiously applying the female chauvinist practice of exclusively using the feminine, rather than "he or she/she or he" "him or her/her or him" which would only require at most 5 more letters and would be far more equitable and less jarring on the reader, especially as, with the exception of one reference, all the figures discussed in the book are male. Perhaps Fuller's ethical concerns might extend to language.

Moreover, Fuller sometimes finds himself overwhelmed by the full flush of language: he tells us how Kuhn's work "seeded" (a sociological cliché) the "current waves" of "postmodern...thought". Surely, a moment's fore-or afterthought would have brought out the absurdity of this mixed metaphor: you can "seed" "crops" or "harvests" but hardly "waves"! Yet, so much is modern rhetoric enamoured of itself (especially the technical jargon of the social sciences) that the original purpose of academic argument i.e to communicate clearly is laid to one side. It is this same rhetoric that tends to drive Fuller's judgemental self, when a more subdued tone would have done better. Moral indignation in inappropriate contexts leaves the reader with the impression of self-righteous ranting. Since Fuller himself insists on the importance of origins it might be reasonable to hazard a guess that Fuller is a lapsed Catholic influenced by the social theology emanating from Vatican II.

Criticism notwithstanding, Fuller's book is worth reading for his persuasive account of the ills of modern science, the more so as it tends to run counter to the received wisdom of the day.

Great book! Read before judging it *****
I'm writing this review not because the book needs more sales, since this may be the bestselling of Fuller's books. But I'm amazed at the cheek of the reviewers here. I don't think they bothered to read the book at all, certainly not to the end. The book is divided into short chapters that look at various senses in which Kuhn and Popper may be seen as having disagreed with each other. The paperback edition contains a glossary that is not included in the hardback. Like it or not, not much seems to have happened when these two guys encountered each other. The action really did occur offstage -- in the various spins that partisans gave to what KUhn and Popper stood for. Kuhn's spin doctors won the PR war, though largely without Kuhn's help. Kuhn comes across in this book as cowardly, Popper as awkward but basically right. There's lots to think about here in terms of what intellectual responsibility means once your work has a much more public impact than you intended. Also, I think unbiased readers will find it interesting the common roots of scientific paradigms/revolutions with religious dogma/heresy. No doubt those who see science and religion as polar opposites won't get the point. But others will. Buy it and judge for yourself.

Great book! Read before judging it *****

I'm writing this review not because the book needs more sales, since this may be the bestselling of Fuller's books. But I'm amazed at the cheek of the reviewers here. I don't think they bothered to read the book at all, certainly not to the end. The book is divided into short chapters that look at various senses in which Kuhn and Popper may be seen as having disagreed with each other. The paperback edition contains a glossary that is not included in the hardback.

Like it or not, not much seems to have happened when these two guys encountered each other. The action really did occur offstage -- in the various spins that partisans gave to what KUhn and Popper stood for. Kuhn's spin doctors won the PR war, though largely without Kuhn's help. Kuhn comes across in this book as cowardly, Popper as awkward but basically right. There's lots to think about here in terms of what intellectual responsibility means once your work has a much more public impact than you intended.

Also, I think unbiased readers will find it interesting the common roots of scientific paradigms/revolutions with religious dogma/heresy. No doubt those who see science and religion as polar opposites won't get the point. But others will. Buy it and judge for yourself.

A sociological paradigm in crisis *
This book tells me, anyhow, that the dreadful paradigm of sociology is in total (and seemingly permanent) crisis. As Hume would say: "to the flames". I could not get anything from this book. I bought this book out of my interest in the philosophy of science. But, this is philosophy of science "socialised", and it simply makes an interesting and important subject into dull scholasticism (or into "historicism" as Popper would say). Fuller likes to point out the pure nonsense that is rested on Popper and Kuhn's shoulders (mostly from people in Fuller's trade, it has to be added). But how does his book of sociological scholasticism help? The book has no coherent pattern, many chapters have no meaning at all ... it would be advisable to have a coherent book-plan before writing a book, as I would expect from anyone with an education. I just wanted to throw it out of the window. I think it is better to read the people themselves - Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos .... it is totally amazing that the book does not discuss the Kuhn-Popper debate in any detail whatsoever, only its "historical significance". Avoid.

A sociological paradigm in crisis *

This book tells me, anyhow, that the dreadful paradigm of sociology is in total (and seemingly permanent) crisis. As Hume would say: "to the flames".

I could not get anything from this book. I bought this book out of my interest in the philosophy of science. But, this is philosophy of science "socialised", and it simply makes an interesting and important subject into dull scholasticism (or into "historicism" as Popper would say).

Fuller likes to point out the pure nonsense that is rested on Popper and Kuhn's shoulders (mostly from people in Fuller's trade, it has to be added). But how does his book of sociological scholasticism help? The book has no coherent pattern, many chapters have no meaning at all ... it would be advisable to have a coherent book-plan before writing a book, as I would expect from anyone with an education. I just wanted to throw it out of the window.

I think it is better to read the people themselves - Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos .... it is totally amazing that the book does not discuss the Kuhn-Popper debate in any detail whatsoever, only its "historical significance".

Avoid.