>>8271424
That's the best one tbqh OP. The others are pretty boring and pedantic. Feyerabend is kinda fun. Foucault is good too but he goes way beyond just science, so isn't usually classified as a philosopher of science.

herbert butterfield - the origins of modern science

But the claim of irrationality in the transition between paradigms has been heavily criticized.

>>8271492
So?

Burtt Butterfield Koyre Canguilhem Bachelard Kuhn Hanson Foucault Cassirer Dilthey Gadamer Rickert Windelband Lovejoy Hempel Quine Helmholtz

>>8271525
Bachelard makes for a pretty good read. If a good traduction exist at least.

I was thinking about reading Karl Popper, is he worth it ?

>>8271990
>traduction
You mean translation?

>>8271424
literally coma-inducing boredom

>>8271424

Start with learning Greek and Latin, then read everything that survives written in either language before c. AD 500.

That should be enough to keep you occupied for your entire life honestly.

The only book you ever have to read about science is Jackson.

>>8271424
Against Method, Feyerabend

>>8272013
Pleb. Kuhn provides one of the most compelling accounts in all of sociology. You don't have to be a super-duper Analytic Logikmeister to appreciate it.

>>8271424
As a practicing scientist this blew my mind. I have Popper on my list next but he's less accessible.

Hackett Feyerabend Fleck UnityofScience Toulmin

>>8271424
There has been good suggestions.
Some people will scream, but Latour is a must read (even if it is to disagree with him)

I know the OP asked for the classics and this is far, far beneath them but I just want to mention that A Brief History of Nearly Everything is the perfect introductory book for someone who knows very little about science and it's history, like a high schooler or semi-ignorant relative.