A Scientific Discipline: The Persistence of a Delusion?

Investor logo
Authors

KUNDT Radek

Year of publication 2016
Type Chapter of a book
MU Faculty or unit

Faculty of Arts

Citation
Description In my response to Martin and Wiebe's academic confession, I try to show that there is a major inconsistency in their argument. This inconsistency resides within their partial and therefore biased application of universal unconscious mechanisms that constrain the human mind, where the application should have been complete. Their argument should have been directed at all sciences or at science in general in order for it to be sound, and not particularly at Religious Studies. This would result in the argument that any scientific discipline is a delusion, which is an outcome Martin and Wiebe do not hold, as they make science a sine qua non for their own argument.
Related projects:

You are running an old browser version. We recommend updating your browser to its latest version.