Debate over the nature of science has recently moved from the halls of academia into the public sphere, where it has taken shape as the "science wars." At issue is the question of whether scientific knowledge is objective and universal or socially mediated, whether scientific truths are independent of human values and beliefs.

Ronald Giere is a philosopher of science who has been at the forefront of this debate from its inception, and Science without Laws offers a much-needed mediating perspective on an increasingly volatile line of inquiry.

Giere argues that it is better to understand what scientists actually do as developing more or less abstract models of specific aspects of the world. Giere's approach resolves the issues underlying the science wars: the critics of science are correct in rejecting the Enlightenment idea of science, and its defenders are correct in insisting that science does produce genuine knowledge of the natural world.

Science without Laws thus stakes out a middle ground in these debates by demonstrating a more powerful way of seeing science.