Kim Quaile Hill (PS: Political Science and Politics, July 2004) makes asomewhat nuanced contribution to the appraisal of epistemic controversies in the disciplineof political science. His primary concern is for the manner in which erroneous presumptionsabout the nature of the scientific method in fields such as chemistry or physics haveencumbered the effort to instill students with the habit of applying similar approaches inthe study of politics. At first, the argument seems directed at uninformed students who donot recognize the social sciences as legitimately “scientific.” Upon further reading, itquickly becomes clear in her elaboration of five common “myths” about science that the moreimplicit intention of this piece is to challenge the assertion of some in the field that theabstract, variant qualities of political phenomena make these applications somehowinappropriate. The point that he proffers—that the physical sciences are hardly as rigid,finite or objective as some may assume—is certainly a valid one.