Response to Review Panelists
This article consists of replies to the reviewers. For Ambasciano I show that his concern about the taint of epistemic phenomenologies can be largely deflected by understanding the exact contextualization of the materials he questions, particularly their place in the function, structure and serializ...
| 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: |
Brill
2018
|
| Dans: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Année: 2018, Volume: 30, Numéro: 2, Pages: 165-172 |
| Classifications IxTheo: | AA Sciences des religions AD Sociologie des religions AE Psychologie de la religion |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Evolution
natural history
world-making
function
comparativism
|
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Résumé: | This article consists of replies to the reviewers. For Ambasciano I show that his concern about the taint of epistemic phenomenologies can be largely deflected by understanding the exact contextualization of the materials he questions, particularly their place in the function, structure and serialized nature of the argument. Responding to Segal I try to clarify the evolutionary role of functionalism, the relation of Durkheim and Eliade as I am using them, and the role of difference in comparativism. Willard’s questions about the relations of my natural history approach to the cultural evolution model provides a good opportunity to point out their complementarity and differences. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1570-0682 |
| Contient: | In: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-12341418 |