My small issue is that he attacks empirical science at its periphery (statistical muckery, mostly going on in politicized debates, pharma, etc.) rather than it'

My small issue is that he attacks empirical science at its periphery (statistical muckery, mostly going on in politicized debates, pharma, etc.) rather than it's core. My experience in biology is quite similar to what he describes with people more-or-less dispassionately seeking the truth. It's a 'messier' field, so perhaps there's more room for personal pride, but I have my doubts about that. Anyone who holds hypotheses dear is a poor mathematician or biologist, just the same. Basically, it's a basic vs. applied science critique; basic science is quite brutal, and you will be wrong very often. Usually there's little at stake regarding which conclusion you come to, so long as you're investigating something interesting. Someone trying to create effective medicine is in a very different situation. > there’s very little fame outside of the immediate group of people you’re talking to This is very true in most basic science fields. There are about 4 or 5 other labs in the world that are familiar with the details of my sub-field, and this is true for most of my colleagues. Mathematics is certainly not privileged in this sense.