There is a widespread view that the centrality of science in our culture is due to the spectacular nature of its achievements, which derive in large part from the fact that it is answerable to nothing but reason and evidence. As a consequence it is believed to be untinged by historical or cultural factors, which can therefore be ignored, making science something which in essence has no context, historical or otherwise. Science has emerged on this view because it managed to free itself from religion and because it adopted a critical, adversarial method. In reality, the situation is quite different. Religion was in the driving seat during the period of the emergence of a scientific culture in the West, and it was always history rather than science that posed the threat to religion. Moreover, a commitment to critical, adversarial method was often rejected as argument for its sake in the crucial early development of science. A more balanced and informed view of just what happened is called for.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.