Yebbut Lighter, scientists have far stronger constraints. They will be quickly called out by their peers if they allow political or religious bias into their work, or if they are discovered to be selective or tendentious in their working methods. Mr Spock rules OK. Historians are, of course, also subject to peer criticism of their work, but the basis of such criticism is far less formal, and biases are somewhat easier to conceal, especially when you consider that those who think they detect bias may well be biased themselves. Biased by politics or religion (or class...), for example. That's not to diss historians, but it is to point to the fact that historians are somewhat more allowed to be normal human beings than scientists are. ;-) And that's why Keith's cherrypicking is such a dangerous pastime. It's easier to cherrypick and still seem "reasonable" in history than it is in science. I mean, just look at how we all laugh at mad pete's take on science, yet Keith's take on history is just as disreputable, and he's still here. He's the only one who can't see that. Well, I suppose there's ake, but he doesn't count (and he must be a major embarrassment to those he throws his lot in with). Even Teribus is seeing it, if my antennae are working correctly.