Science is an anarchic discipline, which emerged largely from the efforts of the bourgeoisie during the Enlightenment, and the philosophy of science is a tool of those who would tame it. Anyone can practise science by e.g. proving Pythagoras’ Theorem, or fixing some mechanical problem that is not trivial with their car, or proving to their own satisfaction that the world is really round.

The article does touch on the possibility of the subversion of science, and there is an egregious example of this that is still current. Following 911 within two days the Administration emerged with a fully formed account of what happened and many experts rushed with theories that supported the official story, thus locking themselves in. Then when some people later raised serious doubts about the scientific plausibility of the official theory they were by and large discredited politically rather than scientifically. Still the debate has not been shut down, indeed it is still quite vigorous, although by now quite muddied.

No scientific inquirer can keep what he finds to himself or turn it to merely private account without losing his scientific standing. Everything discovered belongs to the community of workers. Every new idea and theory has to be submitted to this community for confirmation and test. There is an expanding community of cooperative effort and of truth. . . . [T]hese traits are now limited to small groups . . . . But the[ir] existence reveals a possibility of the present. . . . The general adoption of the scientific attitude in human affairs would mean nothing less than a revolutionary change in morals, religion, politics and industry.

I really love that quote!