skybridge

marcoalmada.com · @marcoalmada.com@bridge.neodb.net

Rated The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science 6/10

3.5/5 stars. This book presents an interesting overview of two giants of 20th Century Philosophy of Science — Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn — and of the shortcomings in their overarching views of science. Like those two, Strevens subscribes to the idea that science is characterised by a unique method of looking at the world, but roots this method in the "iron rule": the idea that scientific arguments are not settled through the full arsenal of rationality, but only by resorting to empirical claims. This image of science shows it as an irrational practice, since it excludes various sound arguments from consideration and pushes scientists towards ever-more-minute experiments, but explains why modern science has managed to build an incremental body of knowledge and why it did not appear at other historical junctures.<br/><br/>I am not entirely convinced that his account provides entirely robust responses to the various studies on the relevance of non-epistemic values in science. Also, as various other reviews pointed out, the book would have benefitted from engaging with modern examples (beyond the sketches on string theory in the final chapter). Nevertheless, the general contours of the "iron rule" are persuasive, highlighting both the irrationality of scientific practice and the space for democratic, yet value-free scientific practice (on that topic, see Bright's paper on Du Bois and the value-free ideal): scientific research itself is bound by the iron rule, but science-informed public policy is the proper space for democratic debate and value definition. This book is, therefore, a good read for those interested in the philosophy of science after Kuhn, but readers should feel comfortable to skim large sections of it, especially given how some points are frequently repeated.

#book

Published 2026-08-19 08:12 UTC · bridged from Atmosphere