Challenges are one thing, but I've seen academic challenges go well into absurdity and brutality.
Still, science is a defined body of knowledge, intentionally restricted to maximize it's net accuracy. It is not science until it has been accepted as such by peer review and standard publication. That is good and bad, especially because science has is a jealous mistress that has claimed all authority over knowledge. It has proven it's power to create wealth and win wars, but it is not so good at providing understanding. Science like our nations and civilization, are all actually based on philosophy, a subject science claims is obsolete. ... It has stared causing problems for science as for all its power, science does not provide the understanding that philosophy can.
I know nothing about Mr. Howard, but as far as Dr. Tyson, he is extremely rigid. I found out about that in discussions of "American science" vs "European science". European science is much more contemplative. Too often, American science says that if they can't touch it or repeat it, it isn't true, but that is going to bar many understandings from being used by science. American science has a problem. That is known and it may well be the loss of philosophy.
As a note, if you want to see what should be great science but is mostly based on logic and reason applied to basic scientific concepts, check out "Genetics For A New Human Ecology". Aside from general evolutionary biology it only cites one article from the Lancet. It might though completely change your ideas about humanity.
Genetics For A New Human Ecology (Transition)
