Who Were the Sea Peoples?

are often better than new ones. Check out what I found in Review of Economic Studies from 1936:

"the primary aim of architectural design today is, very simply, not to find the best possible solution for human environments, but rather, to create adventurous new sculptural works of art on a gigantic scale" -- Michael W. Mehaffy, Cities Alive , p. 167

One can't "put science on a scientific basis." The knowledge of how to practice science is not itself a form of scientific knowledge.

"Philosophers, especially those with an academic position, inherit a long tradition of arguing for the sake of arguing; even if they despair of reaching the truth, they think it a matter of pride to make other philosophers look foolish. A hankering for academic reputation turns them into a kind of dialectical bravoes, who go about picking quarrels with their fellow philosophers and running them through in public, not for the sake of advancing knowledge, but in order to decorate themselves with scalps." -- R.G. Collingwood, The Principles of Art , p. 106-107

“A very small cause which escapes her notice determines a considerable effect that we cannot fail to see, and then we say the effect is due to chance.” — Henri  Poincaré, Science and Method This is something I have pointed out here repeatedly. When someone says that the cause or explanation for some event is “chance,” they have turned a word which, when properly used, should be understood to mean “we don’t know what caused that event,” into the name of a cause itself.  It is as though our ignorance of the true cause of some event is causing the event!

Science has explained some things very nicely. But scientism attempts to move from that to the claim that “the only good explanation is a scientific explanation.” It is like moving from the fact that a hammer is a good tool for some jobs to the claim that “the only good tool is a hammer.”

When writing a paper, restrict yourself to one controversial claim: the main one the paper is designed to forward. Don't throw in other controversial claims as offhand remarks! So , if you are trying to convince chemists that they have made a mistake in determining the formula for some compound, don't mention, in passing, "Oh, and obviously the moon landing was faked."