From an intellectual history of science perspective, Bowler is the master of this stuff. Larson is more readable, however.

Remarkable detail, easy and fun to read. Larson misses some important connections, but makes other ones that others haven’t. All around excellent book.

Wilshire’s critique is effective. I’m just not sure what we’re supposed to do with it… how does it get better?

This book was important when it first came out in 1971, but no one read it then. Fewer people read it now. Surprising since it has some of the most comprehensive looks at the problems with reductionism sociologically, philosophically, and scientifically and does a good job at each.

The best book on a subject no one cares about that I’ve ever read. I would recommend it, but you won’t read it anyway….

Pretty good biography of T. H. Huxley, Darwin’s “bulldog” and inventor of agnosticism. Adrian Desmond’s 1990s work is better.

I’m glad this got republished—it’s one of the most important works in the philosophy of biology from the late 1800s. Huxley tries to work through the implications of Darwinism for the social world. Somewhat surprisingly, he comes down adamantly AGAINST social “Darwinism.”

Much, much clearer than Foucault’s earlier books. This marks the change from his earlier “archaeology” to “geneaology”—analysis that deals more explicitly with power relationships in society. When I think of post-modernism, this book is at the forefront. But you’d be surprised just how accurate it seems: not just academic jargon and relativism.

Desmond’s treatment of Darwin’s Bulldog is the best I’ve ever read…including the 1901 Life and Times written by Huxley’s own son.

Excellent companion to a philosopher/historian who is much, much more influential than you’d think. However, I don’t recommend starting your reading of Foucault with this. The introduction by Gutting is important and fairly general but still much too philosophy-centric to draw in most casual readers.