creative mind, whereas the slave is inert like matter. That legitimates unquestioned political power of those on the right side of the New Science's dichotomies. - You might also appreciate Latour's Laboratory Life, Feyerabend's Against Method, and Segerstrale's Defenders Of The Truth, which look at scientific work as social, communal work. Kuhn's watershed work The Structure Of Sci. Revolutions and the work of Polanyi also explore the sense in which good science is not just controlled empirical experiments but also the paradigms and conceptual schemes that are socially transmitted. - It's not just that a non-specialist won't be able to understand the complex math involved in some more complicated math. It's that even the specialist relies on and builds off of the accumulated work of the tradition. Descartes wanted each scientific theory to come from the work of one individual from the ground up in order to avoid precisely this situation, because he was worried that error and doubt would creep in somewhere in the community. But that's not how the society of scientists functions: Any given scientist will have repeated some experiments, especially those that are significant and not too difficult to repeat, but will certainly not have rebooted from the ground up. Any given scientist didn't re-invent the bunsen burner, the methods of controlling lab conditions, and certainly not the superstructure from which new work draws. This example isn't from science, but: Leibniz missed a necessary pair of parentheses in a momentous mathematical proof that wasn't noticed until