ABSTRACT
We have now covered corroboration and testing in a great deal of depth, and it is time to step back and look at the role that criticism can and should play in science as a whole. Even working on the assumption that criticism is important in some sense, which we will take as uncontroversial, we should question whether it is correct to suggest that each and every scientist should have a critical approach, or whether it is enough for science to be organised so as to perform a critical function. We may also ask whether, and to what extent, dogmatism is important in science. In order to do so, it seems fi tting to revisit a classic debate between Kuhn and Popper.
