<p>Gattei's Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science is an important reassertion of the value, novelty, and coherency of Popper's programme. It is an important historiographical contribution, particularly because it leads us to reevaluate our tradition of painting Kuhn as an epistemological radical, when that title more properly belongs to Popper. - <strong>Friedrich Stadler and Miles MacLeod</strong>, both of University of Vienna, <em>Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2009-07-35</em></p><p>"Looking back at the philosophical literature of the mid-twentieth-century, we find most of its classics sink into oblivion and others shrink in significance, while the writings of Karl Popper loom ever larger. Young readers want to know why. A book that answers this question must be faithful to the original, offer intelligent perspectives, and above all be reader-friendly. Any work that answers this requirement is welcome. Stefano Gattei answers these criteria with flying colors. Popper's theory of science is the first and still the only one that explains the great intellectual value of both Newton's and Einstein's theory of gravity while recognizing the superiority of the latter. In the same manner it is still the only theory of knowledge that makes sense of parliamentary democracy. It is not the last word, as Popper's followers have offered criticism and modifications of his ideas. In the spirit of Popper's philosophy, Gattei ménages to present these criticisms of the master respectfully, in a remarkable sense of proportion."</p><p>Joseph Agassi</p><p>York University, Canada, and Tel Aviv University, Israel</p><p>"Gattei's impressive book offers a very effective reading and defence of the crucial aspects of Karl Popper's philosophy of natural science. It makes excellent use of recently-published work on the early phases of Popper's career, and guides the reader through the development of Popper's views in a way that is both original and valuable. The stark confrontation it presents between Popper's views and those of Thomas Kuhn is something that philosophers of science must now address."</p><p>John M. Preston</p><p>University of Reading, UK</p>