Cambridge Innovation Institute

translation across different natural languages and conceptual systems. While there is no totally neutral vocabulary in which this can be effected, this does not mean that mutual understanding is quite beyond reach, although that will depend on allowing for the revisability of some of the initial preconceptions in play. Comparing divergent schemata is indeed an important means of expanding the horizons of the history of science.

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

This chapter challenges the binary contrast between 'myth' and rational account (logos), reviewing the negative impact of the application of that dichotomy when used to draw contrasts between properly scientific modes of discourse and those to be dismissed as irrational. Ethnographic reports show that there is often no equivalent to our term 'myth' in indigenous vocabularies, at least not one that carries similar pejorative undertones. The arguments of Lévi-Strauss that systems of myth may convey 'concrete science' have the merit of taking those systems seriously, but still imply a pejorative binary judgement.

Preview this article: Yaron Ezrahi, Imagined Democracies: Necessary Political Fictions, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/pc.21.2.09llo-1.gif

Hartmut Walravens, Catalogue of Chinese books and manuscripts in the library of the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 1994, pp. xii, 169, illus., £40.00 (1-869835-21-2). - Volume 39 Issue 3