The concluding part of our study has several purposes. Chapter 16 summarises our arguments and empirical findings. It also opens up the problems that are raised by the conflict between our own account of the world of post-war education in Scotland and the descriptive account of that world sustained by the Scottish myth. These problems are partly philosophical, concerning as they do the logical status of the two accounts. Our own account is social-scientific, but it is acknowledgedly incomplete and arbitrary in some respects, resting on definitions and assumptions that must be made if empirical inquiry is to continue. Nevertheless, we claim it is superior to the account offered by the myth. The problems are also partly political. If, as we have shown, myth not only describes the world, but also expresses human values in the world, what are the consequences for social science and for politics of the myth's shaky status as science? Are all human belief systems inadequate as science? Must they be? If so, what are the possibilities for politics and, in particular, for a politics of progress? And can social science never expect to become established in the world, offering as it apparently does only another (also arbitrary) perspective on, and challenge to, the received opinions of the day?