The New York Times - Jennifer Szalai
…a provocative and fascinating book…that mostly enthralled me…The Knowledge Machine is ultimately a work of philosophy, and should be considered an ambitious thought experiment. Strevens builds on the work of philosophers like Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn to come up with his own original hypothesis about the advent of modern science and its formidable consequences.
Manjit Kumar
"Without the benefits of science, everyday life would be almost medieval. Michael Strevens pulls off the ambitious task of revealing how science really works as he defends the power and effectiveness of the scientific method to reveal the true nature of things against those who deny it very existence. The Knowledge Machine is an engaging must-read if you want to find out what’s so special about science."
Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
"The Knowledge Machine is the most stunningly illuminating book of the last several decades regarding the all-important scientific enterprise."
Jim Holt
"Michael Strevens is one of the leading philosophers of science at work today, so I knew this book would be powerful, bracingly argued, and important. What I did not expect was that it would be such a rollicking good read."
Wall Street Journal - Christoph Irmscher
"Riveting… Strevens promises his readers a better explanation of scientific progress than those given by his two illustrious predecessors, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn…[He] sustains his polemical fireworks with a steady succession of examples drawn from the history of science…Worth reading for the quality of Mr. Strevens’s prose alone, his crystal-clear, unfussy sentences, the crisp metaphors(comparing, say, an electron’s complex “superposition” in quantum mechanics to a cocktail mixed from many ingredients) and many excellent quips… As a hard-nosed, wonderfully timely plea for taking science seriously, for allowing scientists to do their work without interference, The Knowledge Machine is unparalleled."
Nancy Cartwright
"A delight to read. . . . The Knowledge Machine is richly illustrated with wonderfully told, easy-to-understand incidents from the history of natural science."
Paul Boghossian
"Strevens treats us to fascinating episodes in the history of science, wittily and illuminatingly recounted, and to beautifully lucid and accessible accounts of the underlying philosophical issues. A rare achievement, it is entertaining and edifying all at once."
Nathan Heller
"A book as thrilling to read as it is important. . . . To move through The Knowledge Machine is to have one’s assumptions about evidence-based inquiry challenged in captivating fashion; I read it in a trance of delight."
New York Times - Jennifer Szalai
"A provocative and fascinating book.... Strevens’s book contains a number of surprises, including an elegant section on quantum mechanics that coolly demonstrates why it’s such an effective theory.... Ambitious.... Strevens builds on the work of philosophers like Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn to come up with his own original hypothesis about the advent of modern science and its formidable consequences."
Philip Kitcher
"In this beautifully written, accessible, and often entertaining book, Michael Strevens takes up the serious task of accounting for the success of science, and why it took so long to achieve it."
David Wootton
"As with Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, its brevity and simplicity cannot conceal the boldness of its conception, the extraordinary scope of its ambition. It is a very important, perhaps even a great book."
Alan Ryan
"There could hardly be a better introduction to the philosophy of science than The Knowledge Machine."
Philosophy Times - Nigel Warburton
"A stylish and accessible investigation into the nature of the scientific method."
David Papineau
"It is easy to take science for granted, but in truth it is a peculiar institution that is absent from most of human history. Michael Strevens puts his finger on its essential core—a self-denying rejection of any reasoning that does not trade in new observational evidence—and shows how this ‘iron rule’ explains both why science is strange and why it is successful. Strevens wears his learning lightly, but this elegant book takes us to the heart of the scientific enterprise."
The New Yorker - Joshua Rothman
"Strevens shows scientists exerting themselves intellectually.... [and] aims to identify that special something."
Kirkus Reviews
2020-07-22
An exploration of the period, beginning in 1600, “during which empirical inquiry evolved from the freewheeling, speculative frenzy of old into something with powers of discovery on a wholly new level.”
Throughout most of history, writes NYU philosophy professor Strevens, all cultures believed everything worth knowing was already known. Asked to explain the motion of the heavens, the nature of disease, or the makeup of matter, wise men in ancient Egypt, Greece, or China thought deeply and gave answers that were mostly wrong. The great leap forward came after about 1600 with the scientific revolution, which led to dazzling progress and continues to do so. There is no shortage of explanations of how scientists work. Strevens concisely summarizes the most prominent and gives them credit when he feels credit is due. Central to his thesis is what he calls the “iron rule of explanation,” which denies that knowledge follows from thinking, logic, or infallible authority. Wise men in earlier times would have disagreed because they routinely mixed philosophy with observations, and their work was suffused with teleology: the belief that everything has a purpose. Aristotle taught that objects fall because their natural place is the center of the universe. The iron rule ignores what scientists believe and “makes no attempt to…decide winners and losers.” It does not settle arguments but prolongs them by demanding an empirical test, one that all agree will provide useful evidence. “It is a rule for doing rather than thinking,” writes the author. No political, religious, or philosophical reflection allowed; just the facts. Strevens emphasizes that the rule applies to communicating research findings, generally in a professional journal, and scientists remain free to express personal feelings and find deeper meanings. Many—perhaps too many—take advantage of this, writes the author, who provides a thought-provoking and likely-to-be-controversial explanation of how scientists finally got it right.
One of the better examinations of the origins of the scientific revolution.
