In this response, I argue that Hodson and Wong's (2017) (see EJ1133274) critique of the consensus view, though valid, lacks a sufficiently detailed and elaborated alternative. Their emphasis on practice fails to define what the goals of engaging in practice might be. In contrast, the picture of science offered as consisting of six different "styles of reasoning"--a view that has emerged from the studies of science undertaken by cognitive historians provides a more coherent picture of the long term goals of scientific practice and the diversity of thinking across the sciences. In addition, such an emphasis forces a recognition that there is both procedural and epistemic knowledge required to undertake practice--and that such knowledge outcomes must be defined and taught in conjunction with content knowledge.