As the editorial correctly asserted, Karl Popper’s view of science rigorously separates the experimental phase of the scientific process from social influences on theory formation. However, Dr. Alexopoulos did not mention the views of Willard V.O. Quine, Pierre Duhem, and Donald Davidson (2), who denied the adequacy of atomized scientific theorizing to deal with the question of empirical falsification. Quine, Duhem, and Davidson instead argued that theories of science exist not in isolation but, rather, are linked to each other through a web of belief. The rich connectivity of this web ensures that any new experimental result, which Popper might deem a refutation of one specific theory, can also be seen as explained by the same theory if some other theory within the overall web of scientific belief is commensurately adjusted. Context is crucial here, although the conventionalism of Quine, Duhem, and Davidson does not identify social elements as fundamental contextual factors (2).