METHODOLOGY IN SCIENCE AND RELIGION: A REPLY TO CRITICS: with Paul Allen, "Critical Realism Redux: A Response to Josh Reeves"; J.B. Stump, "Science and Other Common Nouns: Further Implications of Anti‐Essentialism"; Peter N. Jordan, "Legitimacy and the Field of Science and Religion"; Jaime Wright, "Making Space for the Methodological Mosaic: The Future of the Field of Science and Religion"; Victoria Lorrimar, "Science and Religion: Moving beyond the Credibility Strategy"; and Josh Reeves, "Methodology in Science and Religion: A Reply to Critics"
Saved in:
| Title: | METHODOLOGY IN SCIENCE AND RELIGION: A REPLY TO CRITICS: with Paul Allen, "Critical Realism Redux: A Response to Josh Reeves"; J.B. Stump, "Science and Other Common Nouns: Further Implications of Anti‐Essentialism"; Peter N. Jordan, "Legitimacy and the Field of Science and Religion"; Jaime Wright, "Making Space for the Methodological Mosaic: The Future of the Field of Science and Religion"; Victoria Lorrimar, "Science and Religion: Moving beyond the Credibility Strategy"; and Josh Reeves, "Methodology in Science and Religion: A Reply to Critics" |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Reeves, Josh, jareeves@samford.edu |
| Source: | Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science; Sep2020, Vol. 55 Issue 3, p824-836, 13p |
| Database: | Humanities Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
Be the first to leave a comment!
