Being a physicist, Chalmers bases his discussions in this field. What I thought was unfair was that Chalmers seemed to expect his audience to be familiar with a lot of his examples. When you aren't, it feels like you're floundering through vast tracts of text until he eventually explains himself. Numbed by wrestling with syntax and my innate hatred of physics, it became difficult to think about the theories and apply them to other examples.

Often recommended as an introduction to the philosophy of science, I expected it to be written in a more accessible style. Reading this was a chore rather than a thought provoking journey through the history of how we think about science. It hasn't put me off the subject, I'm also happy to have learnt more about Copernicus and Galileo that I anticipated. This experience has inspired me to find a disscussion more suited to my interests and style of reading.


Excellent read   October 17, 2002
 7 out of 8 found this review helpful

As a historian of science I found this book a very informative and entertaining read. Chalmers has the ability to introduce an idea (say theories as structures), lead you to think it is good (as in an explanation of scientific methology), then take it to pieces in a couple of sentences.

There are a few areas of the book where someone new to the subject might struggle, but they don't last long and the dedicated reader will be rewarded by continuing.

If you have taken the time to find this book, then you should definately add it to your basket!


Ok for physicists, but hard for psychologists to swallow   January 28, 2002
 12 out of 15 found this review helpful

Several students from my second undergraduate year took a semester long course based upon this book - in conjunction with the physics department. What resulted was a realisation of how deeply en-meshed we had each become in our respective disciplines.

The first few chapters are relatively easy to follow, and seem explanatory and clear - except that you find yourself agreeing with every model of science he proposes - but when he gets on to the colour 'grue' things begin to go awry.

Don't tackle this one unless you are ready to read and re-read a single sentence repeatedly in order to get some idea of its meaning. This one is a tough cookie! As a psychologist, I'd recommend it to philosophists.


A very useful overview of philosophy of science to date.   November 11, 2000
 7 out of 10 found this review helpful

What is it that sets "science" apart from "non-sciences"? Do these terms have any real meaning? What constitutes a science? In this, the 3rd edition of Chalmers' acclaimed introduction to the philosophy of science, notions of what the scientific method entails are critically examined and compared . Stylistically very accessible, Chalmers provides detailed introductions to the more note-worthy areas of phil. of science & suggests further reading for each area within the field. Inductivism and the opposing school of Falsificationism are handled thoroughly and with great clarity. Chalmers then details and assesses the contributions of Quine, Kuhn, Feyerabend et al. to theory of science . A very impressive and compelling introduction to philosophy of science. It should be on every science undergraduate's reading-list.