History of Science, as a discipline, has changed dramatically since the turn of the millennium. This is not a particularly bold claim, though I will offer some numbers to support it. What is surprising, however, is how little justification was offered for the transformation and how little resistance it incited—especially in comparison to the fierce debates that ushered in previous historiographic changes, such as the interest in magic, feminist criticism or The Strong Program. This quietism is disappointing, because the philosophical insights emerging from those early debates are very relevant to the historiography that emerged since. I will shortly suggest which of those insights I find particularly urgent to consider—and the historiographic dilemmas they give rise to—and open the floor to the discussion we should have already had.