Should we see science as a cumulative compilation of knowledge that has grown through history? If so, wouldn't we be conceptualizing science as an entity build by history, with a sole destiny from the start? Would that be going against the very definition of science - ask, work and get rid of paradigms-?

In such case that we would only see past discoveries as myths believed by the undeveloped, we'd be discrediting observations and results that, in their time, were well structured science. Plus, by that same line of thought, we'd have to assume much of what we know today are still myths, for much more explanation to the universe and the entities that conform it is needed.

So, what's left?

Observing the periods of time in which some certain school of thought was believed in its own context, while intertwined with future investigation, stood on its own, as well made science. Only in that way could we learn properly about the history of science, and see it as an everlasting project that hasn't reached a limit or peak at this time.

Formal (normal) education insists on lecturing and describing this process as a cumulative sequence that has led to what we know today, when in reality science is not about an accumulation of knowledge, but a process of reasoning, asking questions and working to get reasonable answers, even if these defy established knowledge.