Well, I use to read a lot of things for the career, and I used to underline the important things. Fortunately I can't underline when I am travel in the minibuses, so I read another things.
Now I'm reading a text of Paul Feyerabend called '¿Por qué no Platon?' or 'Why not Plato?' in English (I can't really find how the text is called in English, the original was in writed in german). In this book, Feyerabend talks about the science, and how it was worked in the last centuries. The book consist in somes essays and conferences of this man.
Well, Paul maintain that the science produces knowledge, but that his method is not superior than the magic or religions. He talks about how the specialist are really dogmatics, and how the science, even when traits to show itself like the truth, make a lots of mistakes, and often try to apply his authority to areas in that don't have any knowledge, like the education, when the science is teached like an absolute true.
Feyerabend defends that the scientist are humans and they have a point of view affected by social facts, that they have really childish behaviors and usually they don't want to accept their errors, and that their authority is unfounded.
Anyway, he doesn't try to destroy the science, he only thinks that we need more points of view. That the child can learn about chemistry in the schools, but they can also decide learn about alchemy too. He says that know the different point of view allow us to criticise the paradigms among them, and the possibility of choose for ourselves the way to resolve different problems or look the things (something like what happens in the social sciences, where a lot of points of view study a same thing).
I Think that is an interesting proposal. At first look it sounds really crazy, but in the book he has their arguments, and they resolve the different questions and problems that this ideas can create. I recommend it a lot.