A description of the often neglected portrayal of the problems facing the history of science today is followed by a brief review of varying methodological approaches found in the history of the history of science, above all from William Whewell to the present. A critical appraisal of Joseph Agassi's thesis that there have been only three methodological variations in the history of science is given, showing how it conflicts with what historians of science have done. This is no bleak result: Science progresses quite well through its steady and productive interaction with methodological theories. The social rules of science are reformed.