Hodson and Wong (2017, this issue) argue that, though the nature of science (NOS) is now an established focus of school science education and a key element in defining scientific literacy, "the consensus view" of NOS misrepresents contemporary scientific practice. They then propose a number of alternative approaches to science curriculum building. I agree with Hodson and Wong's criticism of the consensus view of NOS. I also like many aspects of their proposals and believe that they would enrich the curriculum and present students with a much more realistic picture of science. But I have an important reservation about these proposals. Hodson and Wong's view of NOS is largely ahistorical in that they seem to focus only on contemporary science. Such a focus may lead to a distorted picture of science and its history, portraying science as little more than a mirror image of contemporary science. In order to understand the nature of science, it is vital to learn its history. I conclude by briefly commenting on the role that the history, philosophy, and sociology of science should play in shaping a vision for science education that would inspire creativity, open-mindedness, critical thinking, and respect for different cultures and conceptions of the world. [For Hodson and Wong's article, see EJ1133274.]