What attracted my attention while reading "A Textbook Case Revisited-Knowledge as a Mode of Existence" was its small focus on the idea of doubt.  Curators had boldly decided to "run the risk" of presenting the succession of our perceptions in relation to horse evolution. In doing so they  exhibited the scientific reconstructions of our past for everyone to see. For me at least,  there decision was a much wiser choice than the alternative, that of course being, to gloss over the largely controversial history of paleontology. 

What I am unsure of however, is why displaying a "revisited history" is controversial act in the first place?  Knowledge is undoubtedly on a trajectory, so why deny it?  I believe most people are aware that we can not possibly know everything, and  that people are even wrong about their interpretations of the past at times.   The author put in nicely in saying that "we don't know yet, but we will know, or rather, we will know whether we had known earlier or not".  This statement probably makes some people uneasy and skeptical about science in general, and I'm not sure why.  There was a good example I came across while reading that explained, if we were to misjudge the shape of a building from a large distance, once  corrected of it's shape we wouldn't go on doubting the buildings existence all together.  Furthermore, we wouldn't doubt our own capabilities from that point on. 

 Our knowledge is on its own path of evolution, and I find when we don't get the facts right the first time, people go up in arms. What exactly is it about not knowing everything, and not knowing it accurately that freak us out?