Yes, the subtitle of the article as it was published is different, but as the author of the piece I felt ok with switching it out for the more straightforward and descriptive one I wanted to use (authors almost never have final say over headlines). Happy to answer any questions, or debate anyone who really loved the David Wootton or Steven Weinberg books! I actually enjoyed reading Weinberg&#x27;s book quite a bit, especially his commitment to getting the technical details right, but I found the overarching picture it gives of the history of science to be unpersuasive for reasons which hopefully are made clear in the article.<p>Here&#x27;s Steven Weinberg&#x27;s New York Review of Books article for background on his basic approach to the history of science: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nybooks.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;17&#x2F;eye-present-whig-history-science&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nybooks.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;17&#x2F;eye-present-whig-...</a>