Understanding Inconsistent Science

For such an admirably clear book, the title of Peter Vickers’ Understanding Inconsistent Science is somewhat misleading. Much of the book is devoted to showing that apparent cases of inconsistency in the history of science were in fact not inconsistent, and thus it would seem that by his light there is little inconsistent science to understand. The principal subject of the book, it seems to me, is simply how to understand science. He advocates a methodological view on which philosophers of science should investigate science by paying close attention to its history and forswearing the concept theory in their investigations. Much of the book is indeed devoted to detailed discussions of putative cases of scientific inconsistency, but he acknowledges that his most ‘far reaching conclusions’ (p. 253) do not concern inconsistency but the nature of science and its study. The historical cases serve as examples to illuminate the methodological view.

Epistemology · History of science · Mathematics education · Nature of Science · Philosophy of science · Principal (computer security) · Science education · Subject (documents) · Computer Science · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science · Psychology · Science and Climate Studies

• Inconsistency, Asymmetry, and Non-Locality

  Mathias Frisch•Inconsistency, Asymmetry, and…•2005

  Add to list