What if people explored the global theories before the 1960s? Do you think we would be farther than we are?

Why should we bother with the memory, if we know it is faulty?

Do you think that Scientific papers should include “the false starts, the misinterpretations, the wasted efforts, the failed experiments”? 

A question brought up in the book was “What makes a scientist great?” What is your answer to this question?

Do you think Edward Suess' example of the earth being a drying apple a good example to explain how the planets contracted? Do you think there's a better way to explain it? 

Do you think during this time period, that Americans believed James Dwight Dana and then that people in Europe believed Edward Suess? Or do you think it didn't matter where you came from? 

In this chapter, they talk about a lot of scientists who worked on this and came up with theories. Do you think it's better to have one main person (Ex. Mendeleev on the periodic law) or do you think it's better to have more than one main person?