James Cresswell provides a thoughtful critique of my essay on a theory of myth (Mills) with a specific focus on the nature of theorizing that challenges the dogma of empirical frames of reference, concluding that scientific theories themselves are contemporary myths. Insofar as myth is an attempt to provide a narrative or discourse about phenomena, Cresswell's argument could apply to any theory. But he takes this point further: theory is synonymous with myth. In order to unpack this evocative claim, it may prove useful to revisit how theory and myth relate to the concepts of logos, truth, ontology and identity. In the end, I suggest theory is not myth because theory sets out to describe, interpret and explain phenomena and is scrutinized for its validity, generalizability and applied consequences, while the premises of myth are often historically and culturally presupposed or simply devolve into belief that may or may not be defensible.

中文翻译：

---

为什么理论不是神话

詹姆斯·克雷斯韦尔（James Cresswell）对我的有关神话理论（米尔斯）的文章进行了深思熟虑的批评，特别关注理论化的本质，这挑战了经验参照系的教条，认为科学理论本身就是当代神话。就神话试图提供关于现象的叙述或论述而言，克雷斯韦尔的论点可适用于任何理论。但是他进一步指出了这一点：理论是神话的代名词。为了解开这种令人回味的主张，重新审视理论和神话与徽标，真理，本体论和身份的概念之间的联系可能会很有用。最后，我认为理论不是神话，因为理论着眼于描述，解释和解释现象，并对其有效性，普遍性和应用后果进行了审查，