This line from Archaeology of Knowledge had me thinking about the problem with the legitimizing power of the word science:

“Mathematics has certainly served as a model for most scientific discourses in their efforts to attain formal rigour and demonstrativity; but for the historian who questions the actual development of the sciences, it is a bad example, an example at least from which one cannot generalize.” p. 189

He goes on to say that math is also unique in that it can tell its own history. Math is unique, yet so many disciplines feel insecure about their inability to achieve the repeatable results and the level of abstraction (among other things) found in mathematics. It seems like these sciences deal with their insecurity by trying harder rather than rethinking the viability of imitation.

I was thinking about this again especially in the last few pages with the discussion of recursion. Where computer sciences were once more or less coextensive with mathematics, they seem to have flipped inside out. Computer sciences born of abstraction are now trying to imitate or understand humans. Meanwhile, humans try to make math of politics, society, environment, etc. This is kind of off topic from the chapters we read, but it is just a thought I had.  

Also, Jairus, I didn't get the Whitehead comment that the trick of evil is to insist on birth at the wrong season. I remember you said once that he is one of your favorites.