Affiliation:
1. Virtual Visiting Researcher, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University Oxford UK
Abstract
Abstract
The present contribution is a riposte to Lane, Wildman, and Shults’ commentary on my MTSR article “He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune” (Ambasciano 2022). I offer an epistemological and historical criticism of some of their most relevant claims, along with the identification and deconstruction of some of the biases and fallacies behind their commentary. I also highlight – once again – the historiographical neglect and some of the most questionable approaches and unresolved issues in the current CSR 2.0 modus operandi. Along with the ethical and financial impact of private donors with political and religious agendas in the field, such controversial topics call for immediate action from peers and associations to avoid the further drain of money, resources, and personnel in a time of increasing financial austerity. A computational science incapable of confronting and resolving such basic issues is not a computational science at all – it’s mere tech-evangelism.
Reference72 articles.
1. Tempi profondi. Geomitologia, storia della natura e studio della religione;Ambasciano, Leonardo
2. Sitting on the bench: Is the cognitive and evolutionary study of religion a team sport?;Ambasciano, Leonardo
3. Exiting the motel of the mysteries? How historiographical floccinaucinihilipilification is affecting CSR 2.0;Ambasciano, Leonardo
4. What is cognitive historiography, anyway? Method, theory, and a cross-disciplinary decalogue;Ambasciano, Leonardo
5. An Unnatural History of Religions: Academia, Post-truth and the Quest for Scientific Knowledge;Ambasciano, Leonardo