After the interview with Stuart Firestein, I am left with several pressing questions I'd be interested in asking to keep the conversation going. First, I appreciated the discussion about the differences between how science is taught and how it is actually pursued. I would be interested in hearing Professor Firestein's thoughts on how to better explain to the public and to students that science is never as certain as we think it is . Does this reveal need to happen earlier than college, in even the most basic grade school science courses? When is the optimal time to explain how important ignorance is, and how fragile scientific truths are? Additionally, I liked his explanation of science as, historically, anti-authoritarian. I would ask: how can we balance that valuable characteristic with the fact that sometimes-- like in the case of a pandemic-- excessive skepticism towards scientific authority can be dangerous (see anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers)? Maybe the answer lies in an earlier point he made, about "Science" not necessarily being a brotherhood dedicated to the same kinds of questions; in seeking a health balance, the approach taken by astrophysics is probably going to differ from the approach taken by medical sciences.