“Putting Science in Its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge” by David N. Livingstone is a striking, fascinating, and unusual book that suggests that geography does not play a prominent part in the critical exploration of science. This book advocates a broader context in which the geography of scientific knowledge (GSK) should be dealt with as another field of science studies, like the history of science, the sociology of science, and the sociology of scientific knowledge, and that “geography” in science studies should be examined from multifarious contexts. Currently, GSK has indeed been recognized as an important academic field, especially in science studies. Focusing on “Putting Science in Its Place” and considering the reviews on this masterwork, and relevant research, this paper provides a critical review on why GSK is relevant now, how it offers critical responses beyond the current academic trends, and whether it is capable of investigating the geographical features of contemporary scientific knowledge (and broadly, of knowledge beyond science, such as indigenous knowledge). It discusses that, although “space” and “geography” were inescapable perspectives on explaining the globality of science in traditional science studies, they were understood as either logically metaphysical or logically metaphysical concepts. As a result, space and geography were not intrinsic variables for the globality of science. The success of GSK in highlighting “thinking geographically” resides within its ability to transcend the spatial problem of science, especially the dualism of “placelessness” and “placeness, ” which is contrasted with the tendency to regard space as the external condition of science in traditional geographical research on science. Based on a critical investigation produced by scientific knowledge, which circulated in various locales and claimed that scientific knowledge could be global through various geographical agents, GSK affirmed the consciousness that science is essentially a geographical enterprise. Beyond that, an emphasis on the spatial sensitivity of the production and circulation of contemporary scientific knowledge and the involvement of post-colonial research has brought GSK into a broader perspective. Thus, GSK must create a separate framework in response to what it ignores. The conclusion suggests that Chinese scholars can make a more critical contribution to GSK if the current theoretical presuppositions—which mainly focus on the West—are reexamined, if special geographical questions on Chinese scientific knowledge are explored, and if new insights are imported promptly and critically.