Kuhn vs Popper

I'm not totally convinced about the value of 'A vs B' books. The author always seems to construct two people to fit his arguments rather than the other way around. In this case I'm not convinced either that Popper 'lost' the battle with Kuhn. Maybe in the world of 'science studies' Popper might need a defender, but in a wider context I feel that his falsificationism is alive and well.

But despite all that I feel that Fuller's 'Kuhn vs Popper' is definitely worth reading, as it isn't just a narrow look at the work of two philosophers, rather it is a wide ranging discussion of why the philosophers of science seem to have argued themselves into a corner, giving an optional commentary on science, rather than an opinion on how to improve it. Furthermore it is written to be read by non-specialists, and so is very useful in helping those of us who are confused by the direction philosophy has taken to sort things out in our minds.

Fuller looks at the work of both philosophers and discusses how he thinks they have been misrepresented. He also demonstrates how past philosophies may be aligned in the debate. Fuller goes on to show how philosophers of science are often those who are on the losing side of scientific debates, and uses the term 'Tory history' of science to represent history written from the point of view of how things should have been. The book also looks at the development of univerities - are they a place for the development of ideas or are they simply for imparting the accepted view to the next generation?