Allies in the Fullness of Theory

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Mark Q. Gardiner, S. Engler
{"title":"Allies in the Fullness of Theory","authors":"Mark Q. Gardiner, S. Engler","doi":"10.1515/zfr-2021-0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"236), various reactions, both affirmative and critical. The following responses address some important aspects of that engagement with the article, and Seiwert discusses these points in the concluding response to his critics. Abstract: In a recent article, Hubert Seiwert (2020) presents an approach to the study of religion that we develop (Engler and Gardiner, 2010) as an example of “ empty theory ” , and recommends how it can be salvaged. We clarify three things about our position: Seiwert misunderstands it at crucial points; it already in-cludes his recommended rehabilitation; and it avoids postulating problematic and contentious ontological items, a potential problem that Seiwert ’ s own position has not addressed sufficiently. ’","PeriodicalId":38422,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Religionswissenschaft","volume":"29 1","pages":"259 - 267"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Religionswissenschaft","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfr-2021-0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

236), various reactions, both affirmative and critical. The following responses address some important aspects of that engagement with the article, and Seiwert discusses these points in the concluding response to his critics. Abstract: In a recent article, Hubert Seiwert (2020) presents an approach to the study of religion that we develop (Engler and Gardiner, 2010) as an example of “ empty theory ” , and recommends how it can be salvaged. We clarify three things about our position: Seiwert misunderstands it at crucial points; it already in-cludes his recommended rehabilitation; and it avoids postulating problematic and contentious ontological items, a potential problem that Seiwert ’ s own position has not addressed sufficiently. ’
充满理论的同盟
236),各种肯定和批评的反应。以下回应涉及文章参与的一些重要方面,Seiwert在对批评者的总结回应中讨论了这些要点。摘要:在最近的一篇文章中,Hubert Seiwert(2020)提出了一种我们发展的宗教研究方法(Engler和Gardiner,2010),作为“空洞理论”的一个例子,并建议如何挽救它。关于我们的立场,我们澄清了三件事:Seiwert在关键时刻误解了它;它已经包括他建议的康复;它避免了对有问题和有争议的本体论项目的假设,这是Seiwert自己的立场没有充分解决的潜在问题
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Zeitschrift fur Religionswissenschaft
Zeitschrift fur Religionswissenschaft Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信