>"For my own part, I do think that one of the tasks of the history of science and medicine is to chart the trajectory of progress (however we choose to define i

>"For my own part, I do think that one of the tasks of the history of science and medicine is to chart the trajectory of progress (however we choose to define it) in an open-minded and expansive way that tries as far as possible to avoid writing a history that celebrates the 'winners' and elides the 'losers,' even as it acknowledges that some concepts and methods have a basis in reality and others don't. In part because being too quick to distribute laurels and dunce caps can lead us into unjustified and overly hasty binaries. Not all pre-1800 physicians were astrologers or quacks; not all who quote Shapin or Butterfield are ardent proponents of the Strong Programme." Ben, it's an excellent article. Thanks. I'm curious if you believe the unjustified and overly hasty dualism is becoming more or less prevalent? Since the winners versus losers dichotomy implies competition, another way to rephrase the same question could be, "Is competition increasing, decreasing, or staying about the same?" Whether it's fame and credit for a scientific discovery, or likes and karma points, or any of the many other mostly fabricated and unnecessary competitions, to me it seems society is trending more towards divisive competition rather than beneficial collaboration. Then again, I don't know nearly as much history as you do. ;)