Agree this is a very good way to go. For better or worse, I think actual practicing scientists completely ignore PhilSci, and while Kuhn and Popper are landmarks that set the structure for 20th century philosophy of science, they are also very deep in the weeds specific to their respective programs, and birds eye views are best.
Second this. The other recommendations I can (currently) see are interesting but aren’t good introductory-level resources for the questions OP is interested in. I’ve read Godfrey-Smith and can attest that it’s good for OP. It will likely overturn some of their preconceptions about how science is defined and gives a good intro to methodological, historical, and epistemological, questions in Phil of science.
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Second edition. The University of Chicago Press, 2021.
https://a.co/d/078R6Mfd
And add (a must read for psychology):
Hacking, Ian. The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press, 2002.
https://a.co/d/02drE6q2
Both wide ranging and enlightening, as individual sciences and sub-specialities of any particular science have different objects of study and tools, goals, methods, and quite diverse criteria for.always provisional acceptance of consensual state-of-the-art understandings.
I always found this as a useful orientation, especially in regards to the philosophy of psychological methodologies and the issue of ontology and epistemology:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/index.htm
Bit dated but still useful in interpreting psychological science I’d say and concerned with scientific method. It was during a division between strict biological reflexology, and introspective schools with Freud straddling both.
EDIT: Not sure why the downvotes except an affective response to the mere word, Marxist despite the text being a serious investigation of psychology at the time from a person who later founded Cultural Historical Activity Theory which is a respected school of thought in it's own right and would agree on many fronts with the well regarded recommendation in others comments, Theory and Reality by Godfrey-Smith.
While he hadn't yet matured his own theoretical work at the time of writing the text, it is a precursor to his own independent theoretical discoveries.
Seek_Equilibrium | a day ago
Two gentle introductions to the philosophy of science:
What is This Thing Called Science? by Alan Chalmers
Theory and Reality by Godfrey-Smith
You may also find value in reading the SEP article on the demarcation problem.
josefjohann | a day ago
Agree this is a very good way to go. For better or worse, I think actual practicing scientists completely ignore PhilSci, and while Kuhn and Popper are landmarks that set the structure for 20th century philosophy of science, they are also very deep in the weeds specific to their respective programs, and birds eye views are best.
Themoopanator123 | a day ago
Second this. The other recommendations I can (currently) see are interesting but aren’t good introductory-level resources for the questions OP is interested in. I’ve read Godfrey-Smith and can attest that it’s good for OP. It will likely overturn some of their preconceptions about how science is defined and gives a good intro to methodological, historical, and epistemological, questions in Phil of science.
NOLA_nosy | a day ago
I second - or third?:
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Second edition. The University of Chicago Press, 2021. https://a.co/d/078R6Mfd
And add (a must read for psychology):
Hacking, Ian. The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press, 2002. https://a.co/d/02drE6q2
Both wide ranging and enlightening, as individual sciences and sub-specialities of any particular science have different objects of study and tools, goals, methods, and quite diverse criteria for.always provisional acceptance of consensual state-of-the-art understandings.
coalpatch | 22 hours ago
Some parts of psychology are more artsy and philosophical (eg Freud?), others are more sciencey (eg psycholinguistics)
bobmc1 | 15 hours ago
Psycholinguist here. If I ever meet you in IRL you’ve earned a beer.
Potential_Being_7226 | a day ago
Hi, I have a PhD in psych. Yes, psychology is a science and I will die on that hill. AMA. :)
Popper is a great one to read.
For a historical approach, Francis Bacon’s essays on science is also good place to start if you like Renaissance lit. :)
https://francisbaconsociety.co.uk/francis-bacon/bacon-science/
https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/metabook?id=worksfbacon
I know a lot of people who like Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe by Steven Novella, although I have not read it.
On my virtual bookshelf right now is The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan, but I just started it.
And I also really want to read The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov.
Friendcherisher | 9 hours ago
So are you for the pluralism or fragmentation of psychology as a science?
Potential_Being_7226 | 9 hours ago
Explain?
Ill-Software8713 | a day ago
I always found this as a useful orientation, especially in regards to the philosophy of psychological methodologies and the issue of ontology and epistemology: https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/index.htm
Bit dated but still useful in interpreting psychological science I’d say and concerned with scientific method. It was during a division between strict biological reflexology, and introspective schools with Freud straddling both.
EDIT: Not sure why the downvotes except an affective response to the mere word, Marxist despite the text being a serious investigation of psychology at the time from a person who later founded Cultural Historical Activity Theory which is a respected school of thought in it's own right and would agree on many fronts with the well regarded recommendation in others comments, Theory and Reality by Godfrey-Smith. While he hadn't yet matured his own theoretical work at the time of writing the text, it is a precursor to his own independent theoretical discoveries.
DetailFriendly3060 | a day ago
Penrose - The road to reality.
avg_dopamine_enjoyer | a day ago
Have you read this book?