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...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Recurso Electrónico Artigo |
| Idioma: | Inglês |
| Verificar disponibilidade: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Carregar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado em: |
Brill
2018
|
| Em: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Ano: 2018, Volume: 30, Número: 2, Páginas: 165-172 |
| Classificações IxTheo: | AA Ciências da religião AD Sociologia da religião AE Psicologia da religião |
| Outras palavras-chave: | B
Evolução
natural history
world-making
function
comparativism
|
| Acesso em linha: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Resumo: | 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 |
| Obras secundárias: | In: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-12341418 |