I will hold with my statement. People have always had there own science.
To view science as a monolithic structure is ludicrous;
At the point that Galileo and Copernicus were radical , the best of what passed for science said they were fools. By todays standards clearly they are not.
By todays standards ( which "OBVIOUSLY" are the standards of all time forward) the science of today is infallible when it makes pronouncements.
Actually pronouncements by scientists are very rare. As witness compare the number of theorems to the number of theories. It is the media and laypeople that think they are pronouncements. The view from the hilltop is always in flux.
What I read is more haggling and possible ways of verifying and explaining new observations.
In this sense in pretty much every field. There are several competing "Schools" of science. The only real unifying thing is a theoretical adherence to what we see today as the conventions of scientific research.
I say theoretical adherence because the same demons that plagued "science" in the late middle ages still exist. Politics, personal turf wars, and the need by the "true authorities" to by infallibly correct.
Advancement has always been driven by those who question what is. Survival is protected by following the best advice we can glean.
I wonder how our science will be seen in 500 years.