History Books / trustworthy websites about the history of the scientific method

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the evolution of the scientific method and seeks reliable sources for a paper on the topic. Recommended readings include Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," and Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method and Science in a Free Society." Additionally, a textbook from the late 1800s is noted for its insights into early scientific concepts like luminiferous ether and the conservation of energy. A suggestion is made to consult "A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science" by John Losee for further exploration of the subject. The conversation highlights the lack of established scientific methodologies before 1934, emphasizing the historical context of scientific development.
Shukie
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
I'm doing a paper on how the scientific method in it's current form came to be. I've found a lot of interesting websites already, but not many that I would feel comfortable using as a source. Could anyone point me in the direction of some good books or trustworthy websites that give a good overview of the history of the scientific method?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Paul Feyerabend, Against Method and Science in a Free Society
 
Thanks!
 
Just as a side note...

I have a textbook from the late 1800s, and it's a very interesting read. It starts off with a fairly compelling description of how light travels through luminiferous ether, and then gets right into vis viva (what we call energy) and force are conserved quantities.
 
EnumaElish said:
Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Paul Feyerabend, Against Method and Science in a Free Society

Yeah, scientific methodologies did not exist prior to 1934. :-p

I would suggest "A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science", 4th ed., John Losee, Oxford University Press, 2001, or equivalent.
 
There is a neighboring thread Cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cover-songs-versus-the-original-track-which-ones-are-better.1050205/ which is an endless subject and as colorful are the posts there. I came across a Buddy Holly cover by Eva Cassidy only to find out that the Buddy Holly song was already a Paul Anka cover. Anyway, both artists who had covered the song have passed far too early in their lives. That gave me the...
The piece came-up from the "Lame Jokes" section of the forum. Someobody carried a step from one of the posts and I became curious and tried a brief web search. A web page gives some justification of sorts why we can use goose(s)-geese(p), but not moose(s)-meese(p). Look for the part of the page headed with "Why isn't "meese" the correct plural?" https://languagetool.org/insights/post/plural-of-moose/

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
155
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top