2 SOCIAL SCIENTIST rival 'scientific' theories. Rather, the category of falsification merely served to discriminate between theories with rival ideological bases. While Kuhn opened the Pandoras box of 'incommensurability' more than three decades ago, philosophers and sociologists of science are still grappling to settle the terms of the debate. A few convincing critiques have emerged from within' the realist tradition of the philosophy of science, but the debate is still open. V. Sudhakar reviews these debates, and outlines'an approach to resolving the problem from a dialectical perspective. It has become a matter of form that any discussion in the philosophy of science cannot escape touching upon the developments in physics, such as the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. K-K.Theckedath addresses himself to a very fundamental debate on the nature of space and time in the context of advances in cosmology, and the modern theories of gravitation. He goes on to argue that problems arising in the general theory of relativity can be resolved once the concrete nature of space-time is acknowledged. The papers on Bernal relating to his role in the Scientific Workers' Association and his perception of popular science movements are not yet ready in their final form, and it has not been possible to reproduce them here. However, V.N.Deshpande's paper covers one important aspect of the discussion. Deshpande identifies the historiographic limitations of Ber-nafs Science in History, and goes on to discuss what this means for the study of the history of science in India. PSMs have over the years been implicated into questioning the naiure of the conflict between science and religion. D. Raghunandan had in an earlier paper pointed out that there was a danger within the PSMs of sim-plistically counterposing sicence against superstition and 'erroneous prac-tices^. He had argued that such a simplistic counterposition could involve an anti-people stance. In this paper he develops the argument further in terms of the ensuing relationship between rationality and ideology, and their relationship with the specificity ofPSM activity. S.Irfan Habib and Dhruv Raina have been studying intellectual and institutional influences in the development of science in nineteenth century India. They argue that prior to 1914, within the colonial Indian context there was a close connection between discourses on modern (empirical, utilitarian) science, on religious reformism and nationalist struggle. Bernal had also attempted to understand the rate of diffusion of technical change under different economic regimes. He unequivocally held that a planned economic regime provided conditions that were' far more conducive for the diffusion of technological change than did the anarchy of the market. But how was the coordination between different sectors in the context of uneven technological change effected. Sukumar Muralidharan looks at a family of economic models that provided the underpinnings of planned technological change in India. The paper also discusses the problems of underestimating the political task ofsupersed-ing the market in the process. ^ RAGHUNANDAN