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...
| Published in: | Method & theory in the study of religion |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Brill
2018
|
| In: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AA Study of religion AD Sociology of religion; religious policy AE Psychology of religion |
| Further subjects: | B
Evolution
natural history
world-making
function
comparativism
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Summary: | 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 |
| Contains: | In: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-12341418 |