In the preceding paragraph I may even seem to have violated the very influential contemporary distinction between “the context of discovery” and “the context of justification.” Can anything more than profound confusion be indicated by this admixture of diverse fields and concerns?
 Thomas S. Kuhn. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. First edition and Second edition, enlarged. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1970.
 Margaret Masterman, “The Nature of a Paradigm.” In: Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, pp. 59-89. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970.
This essay reviews the new translation by Jin Wulun and Hu Xinhe of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolution, published by Beijing University Press (2003). Two previous Chinese translations of the book exist: one is translated by Li Baoheng and Ji Shuli, published in Shanghai in 1980; the other is by Cheng Shude et al, published in Taibei in 1989. The new translation is problematic. It is, I argue, no better than the former one, which is itself not recommendable, and is not a match to the latter. The examination of a sample of 22 short paragraphs discussing the nature of a paradigm, reveals an alarmingly high rate of occurrence of mistakes. Also, it reveals that the second translator, translating the second half of the book, used the Taibei translation as his major reference, but did not mention it. As a result, the second half of the translation is very similar to the Taibei one; but at the same time it has some improvements made by the new translator. Finally, I lament on the general low quality of translation works in current academic world of China.