In an initiative called Just Science 2008, bloggers are encouraged to participate in 'a week of science':
"By signing up you stipulate that you will post at minimum 1 scientific post per day between February 4th and 8th of 2008. Additionally, you may not post any non-science entries for this period so that we may offer only science on our aggregated feed. What counts as science and non-science? [...] A post which uses a reference to Creationism before elucidating a biological topic is science; a post which discusses the social and religious dynamics of Creationism is not."
Does this mean that ‘science of religion’ in general is not science?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yep, it sure sounds that way - according to the text! The message states clearly, that there is no room for religion in science. That also seems to be the case for social and political studies. Why haven’t anyone informed me about this a long time ago – all of those years wasted on nothing!
Good point.
As i see it, science of religion = the analysis of religion and traditions.
By the way, thanks for responding to my review. It was published in
"Svensk teologisk kvartalsskrift"
no. 4/2007
Here comes the link
STK
Sorry for not responding sooner! I guess I have difficulties deciding whether or not to keep this blog alive...and so I tend to ignore it. I'd like to share some more thoughts on my project, but at the same time I have to consider if it would cause problems concerning publication, looking to silly etc.
Z & Louise, I agree. Part of the problem may be that English lacks a term that covers both the sciences and the humanities (like the Danish 'videnskab', the Swedish 'vetenskab', or the German 'Wissenschaft'). Maybe this even has an important influence on thinking about these things.
Likewise, I really need an English term for 'videnskabsteori'/ 'vetenskapsteori'/ 'Wissenschafstheorie' - suggestions are welcome!
Post a Comment