On In Our Time with Melvin Bragg the host often asks his guests to give him a "flavor" of the debate amongst scholars. I always feel that this is acceptable when they are talking about history (e.g., The Diet of Worms), but somewhat bristle at the presumption when it comes to science (e.g., Galaxies). I suppose that I feel that much of scientific work on an advanced level, when science become more than just natural philosophy, is beyond simple intelligibility via sampling a "flavor." In other words, the necessary contigency of scientific debate makes is rather difficult to extract out a portion to impart the quality of the argument. In contrast history is a bundle of facts with little theoretical unity, so one can more easily capture via sampling the rough distribution of the debate. Agree or disagree?