In this book, I have tried to show how STS emerged at the intersection of two trends. One is the naturalization of philosophy, the other the search for a better accommodation between natural science and society, inspired by a widespread disaffection with science and its societal role in many Western countries. I argued that this critical stance towards science and the resulting anti-philosophical attitude have been detrimental to STS as an empirical discipline. Paradoxically, the ambition to naturalize philosophy led STS to fatally compromise its empirical commitments. STS tried to show not merely that science has historically been shaped by societal forces, but even that its susceptibility to such influence is inherent and inescapable. To establish this strong conclusion, STS had, ironically, to resort to philosophical arguments. Moreover, the normative subtext to STS's empirical efforts has gradually become more explicitly articulated, in step with the decreasing news value of its empirical results. Its critical attitude to science got STS involved in the Science Wars, which have now fortunately subsided. But STS still needs a new, positive agenda: Where orthodox STS wanted to show science to be social through and through, the reformed discipline would highlight those aspects of science that make it answerable to non-social reality. Borrowing ideas from recent social epistemology as articulated by Alvin Goldman, it would attempt to record, and improve, the reliability of different ways of conducting science. This would be Science Studies' most valuable contribution to the improvement of science and to strengthening its positive role in society.