I would recommend the writings of Fritjof Capra and the ideas of Rupert Sheldrake.

Best wishes,
Jack

Any (or all) of these readings will do:

• Conjectures and Refutations, Karl Popper
• Chance and Necessity, Jacques Monod
• Against Method, Paul Feyerabend
• The Beginning of Infinity ..., David Deutsch
• Why Trust Science?, Naomi Oreskes

To understand modern science one ought to look first at philosophers from the Age of Enlightenment, empiricists like John Locke, David Hume and George Berkeley. Empiricism is a crucial part to understand the scientific method. When you have them understood, then modern philosophers like Popper and Feyerabend are handy and for the social aspects of making science, Thomas Kuhn.

Then of course, a short introduction to the history to the various branches of science should be informative.

For physics, Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery.

For biology, I agree with on Monod's Chance and Necessity. Also Stephen Gould.

For social sciences, it's a very different story. I don't know of a good overview in English.

Something on Arabo-Judeo-Muslim science during the European middle age. Our debt to the Arabs, Jews and Persians is often ignored in the way history of science is told in the West. And yet algebra, alchemia, algorithm, average, azimuth, etc. etc. come from Arabic.

I think what fits more for what you're asking for may be:

Richard DeWitt - "Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science"

Other than that, I think it would be better to pick up books for biology, chemistry, and physics separately.

Something on Arabo-Judeo-Muslim science during the European middle age. Our debt to the Arabs, Jews and Persians is often ignored in the way history of science is told in the West. And yet algebra, alchemia, algorithm, average, azimuth, etc. etc. come from Arabic. — Olivier5

Last winter I read Pathfinders: The Golden Age Of Arabic Science by Jim Al-Khalili which was quite good.

Good for you. Science a fascinating story, but it's often told in a historical revisionist, eurocentric manner. Science 'history' books often read like hagiographies: glorified lives of the science saints. And the science saints must all be white, for some bizarre reason, and preferably Anglo-saxon. The contribution of antique Egypt to Greek science is therefore ignored; the contribution of the Arabs, passed on to us through Al Andalouz (Arabic Spain), is casually passed over; even the historical contribution of the Catholic Church to research and education in Europe is deleted from collective scientific "history".

In short, I find science history books often more ideological than actually scientific.