Identifying Future-Proof Science

Reviews / Votes

For the last sixty years, history has often been interpreted as creating profound challenges for those who ascribe to more positive views about the rationality of scientific progress and the significance of scientific success. [...] Too often we hear hardened skeptics dismiss the authority of scientists on the grounds that science has been wrong before. It will be convenient in the future to direct such individuals to Vickers' book. * David Harker, Metascience * Identifying Future-Proof Science poses interesting and novel questions and consistently pursues them thoroughly and illuminatingly. * Glenn Branch, Philosophy in Review * How do scientists reach consensus? It's a simple question with increasing relevance in our polarized world. Peter Vickers draws from disparate examples in physics, anatomy, palaeontology, and virology to give an under-the-hood insight into how science really works. Although his subject is weighty, his conversational prose makes for both an enlightening and engaging read. * Steve Brusatte, University of Edinburgh, author of The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs * Vickers' discussion of the Tiktaalik blends together scientific results with sophisticated and nuanced philosophical argumentation. It is to be commended for its focus on areas of science often neglected by philosophers. It's also admirably clear and accessible. This will be readable by undergraduate and postgraduate students. * Henry Taylor, University of Birmingham * This rich but accessible, example-driven book relocates the realism debate from frontier physics to the sciences that most matter to us - shifting the burden of proof in the process. * Kerry McKenzie, University of California, San Diego * Peter Vickers has written just the book we need to move forward in the ongoing debate between scientific realism and its competitors. He investigates a wide range of heterogeneous historical examples and deploys them thoughtfully to challenge virtually all of the standard positions in that debate while making the case for a novel alternative proposal of his own. I suspect that the weight of the historical evidence he has gathered will force many contributors to the realism debate to substantially modify their own existing views-it certainly had that effect on me! * P. Kyle Stanford, University of California, Irvine * Peter Vickers gives clear, convincing philosophical arguments and fascinating case studies to support bold predictions about which scientific findings will stand the test of time. * Mike T. Stuart, NYCU Taiwan and London School of Economics *