A scientific discipline: the persistence of a delusion?
In my response to Martin and Wiebe's academic "confession", I try to show that there is a major inconsistency in their argument. This inconsistency resides within their partial and therefore biased application of universal unconscious mechanisms that constrain the human mind, where th...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Společnost
[2012]
|
| Dans: |
Religio
Année: 2012, Volume: 20, Numéro: 1, Pages: [39]-42 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
philosophy of science
B Religious Studies B cognitive science of religion |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | In my response to Martin and Wiebe's academic "confession", I try to show that there is a major inconsistency in their argument. This inconsistency resides within their partial and therefore biased application of universal unconscious mechanisms that constrain the human mind, where the application should have been complete. Their argument should have been directed at all sciences or at science in general in order for it to be sound, and not particularly at Religious Studies. This would result in the argument that any scientific discipline is a delusion, which is an outcome Martin and Wiebe do not hold, as they make science a sine qua non for their own argument. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2336-4475 |
| Référence: | Kommentar zu "Religious studies as a scientific discipline (2012)"
Kommentar in "Why the possible is not impossible but is unlikely (2012)" |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Religio
|
| Persistent identifiers: | HDL: 11222.digilib/125395 |