Steven ("Steve") Fuller is a well known sociologist of science (he began as a philosopher of science but is presently employed by the University of Warwick as a sociologist). He is widely credited for the subject and journal of Social Epistemology. He is also the guy who wrote several hundred pages of "expert" opinion for the creationists in the Dover Trial for money. Never one to waste work, he has revised it as a book. Save yourself the $20 and read Sahotra Sarkar's review in the Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. I particularly like the final sentences:
These excursions into fancy allow me to end on a positive note: the lack of depth or insight in this book is more than compensated by the entertainment it provides, at least to a philosopher or historian of science. No one should begrudge us our simple pleasures. I'm happy to have read this book, and even more so not to have paid for it.
Life Science
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Much as I hate balance, you might like to consider this more measured appraisal of Fuller, from the same Notre Dame Philosoophical Reviews, this time by Val Dusek (commenting on Fuller's book "The Knowledge Book", 2007):
Read that as you will! Or see http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=13666 for the full context.
Posted by: Jason | August 11, 2008 9:46 PM
Ouch!
Posted by: Brian English | August 11, 2008 9:48 PM
Rather a drawback when the book you are writing is all about natural science, no? Fuller can write about epistemes and popular ideas all he likes. I have no quibble with this. But when a maverick puts his foot into the water of another discipline, he had damned well better know the material on which he is writing if he's to garner any kind of respect from the professionals. We criticise theologians for this all the time - they attack a science of their own construction and assign it all the cardinal sins. Fuller is merely a secular version of that.
And finally I am minded of this dialogue, rather evilly:
Philosophers can also read science without understanding it.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | August 11, 2008 9:55 PM
I'm reminded of the old quote from Benjamin Disraeli - "Thank you for the gift of your book. I shall waste no time in reading it."
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | August 11, 2008 10:51 PM
#3 A scene worth watching in full, with Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline.
Posted by: James F | August 11, 2008 11:41 PM
The whole review is a treat - S[n]arkar pwns Fuller.
Posted by: Bob O'H | August 12, 2008 1:30 AM
Maybe you guys just aren't being open-minded enough. Any point of view is defensible, if you try hard enough ;)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7540427.stm
Posted by: jeff | August 12, 2008 3:49 AM
Val Dusek's review referred to in comment 1 is actually very critical of Fuller's understanding of modern evolutionary theory. Fuller can defend ID, in part, because he knows so little about modern biology. This also seems to be the case for Alvin Plantinga's defense of ID and criticism of evolutionary theory.
Posted by: michael fugate | August 12, 2008 1:42 PM