The nature of scientific knowledge has been fiercely debated in recent years. At the heart of this debate has been the question 'what makes scientific knowledge instinctive? Traditional realist philosophies of science argue that scientific knowledge is special because of the unique method by which it is produced. In contrast, empirical studies in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and other "post-modern" disciplines have challenged this assertion and blurred the boundaries between science and other activities. Nevertheless, we still talk about "science". So what is it that makes it different to politics? Are the new criteria-ethical, intentional, practical, institutional etc that allows us to define, recognise and appreciate science without reifying it?