Review by Choice Review
Vickers (philosophy, Durham Univ., UK) asks how science might be at once inconsistent and successful in this, his first book based on his doctoral dissertation. He takes issue with approaches to scientific inconsistency that center on the logical structure of theories. He avoids any context-independent definition of "theory" and turns instead to the details of history and scientific practice to consider how scientists actually work through inconsistencies, aligning himself with a larger professional movement that advocates closer ties between philosophy of science, history of science, and science itself. The author's primary aim is to promote this method by showing how canonical examples of supposedly inconsistent theories are not inconsistent, in the logical sense, when considered in their proper context. The examples, which Vickers manipulates ably, cover a comprehensive spread of time periods in the history of science. All come from mathematics and physics, and many are quite technical. Because Vickers's central argument is about how philosophy of science should be practiced, the book's style and content assume a professional audience and substantial background knowledge, limiting the readership to those with training in philosophy and/or physics. Summing Up: Recommended. Graduate students, researchers/faculty, and professionals. J. D. Martin Colby College
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
