>
> This means that really existing science does not correspond to the ideal
> definition of science, not that there is no difference between science and
> other forms of acquiring knowledge. Which is what the assertion that "babies
> are doing science" would entail. "Knowledge" is also being used equivocally
> here -- I know how to coordinate my body in a completely different sense
> than I know (or rather don't know in my case) the mechanical and physical
> laws that allow that coordination. The first can be done by a guppy. The
> latter is science.
>
The problems with suggesting that science doesn't correspond to the ideal definition of science are 1) as Shag suggested, the impossibility of an inductive and objectively naturalistic science - it is a social relation sometimes tragically and sometimes farcically practiced under conditions direction found and transmitted from the past and 2) once the ideal definition is abandoned, the uniqueness of Science goes out the window and, upon close investigation, its knowledge production processes run remarkably parallel to the others you want to place elsewhere and probably below.
Moreover, what residual uniqueness there is can be found Science's almost transcendent tendency towards reductionism and the ideological commitment to generate technical solutions to social problems... solutions that tend to bracket or displace staggering percentages of problem causality. These institutional priorities, it can be argued, have nothing to do with (pure) Science and everything to do with the (impure) Society within which Science must operate but the idea that a pure Science would emerge if we could purify/perfect Society fundamentally misunderstands everything we know about the partiality and non-innocence of all situated knowledges and standpoint epistemologies.