by giladedelman Fri May 06, 2011 3:43 pm
Thanks for your post.
The line you reference is distinguishing the philosophers from the historians. You're right that we can infer that the author doesn't find the former group's views to be extreme, but at the same time, he is explicitly saying that the historians are extreme.
What we need to do here is make sure we clearly identify the "thesis" in question: "the thesis that natural reality never plays any part at all in determining what scientists believe." That isn't the philosophers' view -- they don't say natural reality doesn't play any role -- it's the historians' view. And the passage is basically devoted to showing why that view is extreme and implausible.
Does that make sense, or are you still confused?