Against Method by Paul Feyerabend (1993)

Feyerabend likes to play provocateur, he likes to make big, brash, surprising statements, but his arguments are more subtle than they seem. The Method that he is against is the scientific method, or rather, the enthronement of the scientific method as dogma. With a brilliant case study on Galileo he shows that real scientific progress is dirtier, messier, and far more chaotic than the idealization that the method prescribes, and that this chaos is not only beneficial, but essential to the practice of scientific research. Anybody working as a scientist surely knows this, though many choose to ignore it.

Some of his other ideas, especially his call for a formal separation of science and state, have not aged gracefully. Judging by the overall thrust of his arguments I'm fairly certain that, were he still around, he'd revise these ideas in response to recent and powerful attacks on science (as with environmentalism, evolution, social policy, and medical research, to name some examples). ( )

In praise of deviants - Also look at the Wisdom of Crowds and the Cult of the Amateur

Brilliantly perceptive book about the practical workings of science. A serious argument that helps to put Science in it's place in society (appropriately dethrone it from the centre of society's attentions without discrediting it). Although it's been called "anarchic", it reads like an argument/thesis so as a scientist you can still feel OK reading it, rather than feeling like you're just reading dogma. Changed my view of science completely. I read this after Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" first - and this was the perfect follow-on book to get into. ( )

an argument that the creativity and desires of the scientist have always achieved more than the supposed methods of science ie observation, experimental design etc etc ( )