We discussed the ideas of a key philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn.  The essence of his is theory is that scientists work within a “paradigm”, ignoring anomalous results until a crisis point is reached and a new theory replaces the working paradigm (see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Wikipedia - and he’s also in the Dorling-Kindersley Philosophy book - p293).  Given this theory, to what extent can we believe anything that science tells us?  And are we on the brink of another paradigm shift?  We considered examples including quantum physics, the Michelson-Morley experiment and evolution.  We considered briefly the broader question of rationality as described by historicism.  Perhaps we should take Richard Feynman as an exemplar and regard science as progressive problem-solving, working within or beyond the paradigm as the problem demands.  We can accept science as reliable, because it does solve puzzles well, builds useful tools and progresses in the scope of what it can explain.  It cannot prove the truth of theories forever, but the tools and concepts get more comprehensive over time, and explain nature better.