Now, I havent read McCloskeys book, or previously encountered this blog, so making too much of this is a dicey proposition. But at least on this particular line of argument, I vehemently disagree. I mean, you can argue that this is a true statement in support of the argument that science doesnt drive progress, but in order to do so you need to adopt a perverse and ahistorical definition of science. Because while its absolutely true that we didnt have a modern chemical understanding of steel-making until the twentieth century more or less by definition using that fact to claim that science was not involved in making iron and steel better and cheaper is utter garbage. Science is not a particular set of facts or institutions, science is a process.