 Rowbottom (2019) contends that it would be wrong to characterize the disagreement between the constructive empiricist and the scientific realist as a debate about the aims of science. In extending his critique, we might also be persuaded that constructive empiricism is mistaken in thinking that any philosophy of science ought centrally to be about aims at all. In characterizing what science is, we should instead focus on the many disparate activities and products of science itself, independent of any general aim or “point” to the activity. As Rowbottom says,