
The Whig History of Science: An Exchange - Hooke
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/02/25/the-whig-history-of-science-an-exchange/
======
mannykannot
I think Silverstein makes a weak argument, and I agree with Weinberg in that I
see nothing wrong with noticing when someone's view turned out to be in
agreement with what is now established science, or has by now been clearly
refuted. I would, however, argue that doing so is not particularly important -
even when we can do it, knowing who was wrong and who was right (and no-one
was right all the time and in every detail) doesn't tell us anything about how
we got to being able to make that judgment with confidence.

