(0) items

Note: Supplemental materials are not guaranteed with Rental or Used book purchases.
Understanding Inconsistent Science,9780199692026
This item qualifies for

Your order must be $59 or more, you must select US Postal Service Shipping as your shipping preference, and the "Group my items into as few shipments as possible" option when you place your order.

Bulk sales, PO's, Marketplace Items, eBooks, Apparel, and DVDs not included.

Understanding Inconsistent Science



Pub. Date:
Oxford University Press
List Price: $73.60

Buy New Textbook

Usually Ships in 3-5 Business Days

Rent Textbook

We're Sorry
Sold Out

Used Textbook

We're Sorry
Sold Out


We're Sorry
Not Available

More New and Used
from Private Sellers
Starting at $26.64

Questions About This Book?

What version or edition is this?
This is the edition with a publication date of 11/15/2013.
What is included with this book?
  • The New copy of this book will include any supplemental materials advertised. Please check the title of the book to determine if it should include any CDs, lab manuals, study guides, etc.


In recent years philosophers of science have urged that many scientific theories are extremely useful and successful despite being internally inconsistent. Via an investigation of eight alleged "inconsistent theories" in the history of science, Peter Vickers urges that this view is at best overly simplistic. Most of these cases can only be described as examples of "inconsistent science" if we employ reconstructions of science which depart from the real (history of) science to an unacceptable degree. And where we do find genuine inconsistency he argues that the nature of--and correct response to--the inconsistency differs dramatically depending on the details of the science in question. Thus we are warned against making overly general claims about 'science': what are all called "theories" in the history of science are actually significantly different entities, which work in different ways and react to inconsistency in different ways. Vickers argues that the traditional goal of philosophy to make substantial, fully general claims about "how science works" is misguided, and can be significantly circumvented if we re-frame our debates such that reference to "theories" is eliminated. In this way one is not tempted to think of the history of science as a history of instances of the same kind--theory--about which one could hope to say something substantial and general. And in addition eliminating theory means that we avoid fruitless debates about the 'real' nature and content of "theories." Vickers' account leads to a particularist philosophy of science, where the reader is urged to appreciate the often dramatic differences between the different "inconsistencies in science" which have been identified.

Author Biography

Peter Vickers completed his undergraduate BSc in Mathematics and Philosophy at the University of York in 2003. This was followed by an MA in History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Leeds, completed in 2005, and a PhD in the history and philosophy of science, also at the University of Leeds in 2009. Following a year teaching at Leeds, Vickers spent a year as a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh, before returning to the UK in 2011 as a Lecturer in Philosophy at Durham University.

Please wait while the item is added to your cart...