"Recently, social constructivists have claimed that the outcomes of scientific debates are strongly influenced by non-evidential factors such as the rhetorical prowess and professional clout of the rival researchers. The collection presents historical studies and philosophical analyses that undermine the plausibility of an extreme social constructivist perspective, yet indicate the need for a richer and more realistic account of scientific rationality.". "The essays consider the nature of scientific controversy, how such controversies are resolved, and whether controversy is in fact necessary to the advancement of scientific knowledge."--BOOK JACKET.