"Scientific Controversy" by M. Polanyi was a tough article for me to grasp. Mostly because it didn't seem like direct science writing, rather an attempt at an explanation of how science writing is read and understood. "Heuristic passion seeks no personal possession. It sets out not to conquer, but to enrich the world. Yet such a move is also an attack. It raises claim and makes a tremendous demand on other men; for it asks that its gift to humanity be accepted by all" (194). I struggled with this opening as it seems somewhat circular to me. Heuristic, if I understand is one's ability to learn something or discover something on their own accord. I don't understand the claim that it is an attack or a tremendous demand, as some people may just not take a heuristic approach to things. This reading then moves on to claim that "scientific controversies never lie altogether within science" (194). All of my observations with scientific arguments support this claim. When a society begins to debate, or argue a scientific method, belief, or ideal, it seems to me that their "logic gap" is greatly centered around their beliefs outside of science. I wonder how much this comes into play when writing about science in a non-definative way. In other words, if I am not trying to persuade my "science" audience, but instead I am writing fiction or otherwise, is this an issue of human nature that I need to take into account? Do I need to factor in other's belief and value systems into the way in which I write fake science? 

This article's claim that "the elimination of personal knowledge from science would destroy science" (197) seems to support that I would indeed need to take those beliefs into consideration.

The term "logical gap" was used over and over in this article. What exactly does it mean by gap? How big does this gap need to be between groups in order to make a difference?