1,720,969 research outputs found
Athéisme, scientisme
No full textUn appel à contribution est lancé pour une journée d'étude sur (New) Atheism, Scientism and Open-mindedness, Lancaster University, 3 avril 2012. Confirmed keynote speakers: Dr Fern Elsdon-Baker, British Council Professor Stephen Clark, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of Liverpool Papers are welcome on any aspect of the relationship between or interaction of (new) atheism and/or scientism and open-mindedness. Each presenter will have 30 minutes to speak followed by 15 minutes for ..
Criticisms of “Scientific atheism” by atheist thinkers
No full text“Bilimsel ateizm” veya literatürde bilinen diğer adıyla “yeni ateizm” halk arasında kabul gören bir felsefi görüştür. Bilimle ateizmi ilişkilendirirken bir yandan da bilimin dinle çatışma içinde olduğunu temellendirmeye çalışan bu görüş temelde bilimin otoritesinden faydalanma amacını gütmektedir. Böylece bu görüşün temsilcileri tarafından bilimin prestiji kullanılarak ateizmin doğru olduğu iddia edilmektedir. Richard Dawkins ve Daniel Dennett gibi yazarların savunduğu ve popülerleştirdiği bu görüş birçok dindar teolog ve felsefeci tarafından da ciddiye alınmış ve eleştirilmiştir. Yakın zamanda “bilimsel ateizme” ait bu görüşler ateist düşünürler tarafından da eleştirilmeye başlanmıştır. Örneğin Michael Ruse, Fern Elsdon-Baker ve Terry Eagleton gibi ateist düşünürler, “bilimsel ateizm”i eleştiren kitaplar ve makaleler kaleme almışlardır. Temel olarak “bilimsel ateizm”in dini, bilimi ve dinle bilim arasındaki ilişkiyi doğru bir şekilde tanımlamadığından bahseden bu ateist düşünürler yeni ateistleri ideolojik ve taraflı davranmakla suçlamışlardır. Bu makalede ateizmin içinden “bilimsel ateizm”e getirilen bu eleştirilere yer verilecek ve ateist düşünürler arasındaki görüş farklılıklarına dikkat çekilecektir.Scientific atheism, also known new atheism became a very popular philosophical view. It tries to relate atheism and science and as a result uses the authority of natural sciences. Science’s authority will be used to argue that atheism is right and monotheist religions are wrong. Figures like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett popularized this view and made it a important phenomenon in philosophy of science discussions. This view was criticized by religious theologians and philosophers. Recently this view has been criticized by atheist thinkers like Michael Ruse, Fern Elsdon-Baker and Terry Eagleton as well. They criticized “scientific atheism” in their works and argue that new atheists do not grasp the relationship between science and religion. They did not even understand the concepts of science and religion in the first place. This article will evaluate atheist critiques of “scientific atheism” and show that atheists differ in terms of their understanding of the relationship between science and religion
Re-examining 'creationist' monsters in the uncharted waters of social studies of science and religion
No full text
IN DEFENSE OF PUBLICS: PROJECTION, BIAS, AND CULTURAL NARRATIVES IN SCIENCE AND RELIGION DEBATES
No full textJohn H. Evans's recent book Morals Not Knowledge is a timely argument to recognize broader social and cultural factors that might impact what U.S. religious publics think about the relationship between science and religion and their attitudes toward science and/or religion. While Evans's focus is primarily on what can be classed as moral issues, this response argues that there are other factors that sit within neither the older epistemic conflict model approach nor a moral conflict model approach that also merit further investigation. There is a significant need for further research that examines the social, psychological, (geo)political, and broader cultural factors shaping people's social identities in relation to science and religion debates. When undertaking such research, we need to be wary of creating a binary between scholarly and public space discourse. Social scientific research in this field should be led by public perceptions, attitudes, and views, not by concepts or frameworks that we project onto them.</p
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
