He might have changed the way a few scientists and a few more philosophers think about science but most people including most practising scientists don&#x27;t think about such things at all.  The general public, I suspect, isn&#x27;t even aware that there is a &#x27;way the world looked at science&#x27; much less that there is a different way of looking at it.<p>I wouldn&#x27;t have bothered writing this rant except that the sloppy use of words like &#x27;world&#x27; when all that can really be meant is something like &#x27;the world of science&#x27; or possibly &#x27;the views of some academic observers of science&#x27; is one of the defining characteristics of journalism (both high brow and mass market).  When one claims far more than is plausible one does a disservice to the truth and misleads the interested lay person and when that person discovers that the claim is untrue the reputations not only of the journalist but also of the original work suffer.