The question at hand makes sense: it is rather hard (impossible?) to distinguish clearly and with a perfect model what is pure science and what is not. Like eve

The question at hand makes sense: it is rather hard (impossible?) to distinguish clearly and with a perfect model what is pure science and what is not. Like everything in life, separating the whole world in a single dichotomic variable (science/not science) will yield disappointing results. But the whole article is built on failed sociological theories brought back from the dead. The science wars are over[1] and the realists won, because studying (real) science with cultural studies tools is impotent. That guy just didn't get the memo or is playing deaf because it is pleasing the conservative agenda. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars "Writing about these developments in the context of global warming, Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we said?"