Perhaps I indulge myself a little but it seems curious that in exactly the same year (1947) and at the other end of exactly the same lake (Geneva) a UNESCO conference discussed the same myth/fact matter and came the opposite conclusion to the one attributed to Tingsten by Caldwell.  At least, that would be my reading.  I notice Bruce Caldwell gives “nationalism” as an example of the myths opposed by Tingsten, but I wonder if he would rule out the logical possibility that Tingsten equally opposed myths of internationalism?

Other curiosities are that both Popper and (Michael) Polanyi were presumably present at the Mont Perelin discussion, and within a few years would prominently clash over this issue of myth vs scientific objectivity, so I cannot help but wonder if either spoke up then?

That the pro-science DG of UNESCO Huxley abruptly resigned December 1949, - leading UNESCO to quit London for Paris (and promptly promote Levi-Strauss) – whilst Hayek quit London in 1950 - is of course quite possibly all co-incidence.  

But I confess my own champion of scientific objectivity is Bacon rather than Popper – hence my attention to things, not words, in the above.

Rob Tye, York, UK