Sentences with phrase «with epistemology»

Replicability is another issue and the noise issue isn't addressed with epistemology but rather good hypotheses and methods.

If anyone is interested in a highly amateur take on what's important about how we know we don't know, with some epistemology thrown in, Tobis has kindly given me a platform to invite thinkers about thought to talk about communication in the context of what is not knowledge:

We end up with an epistemology and moral vocabulary that is effectively beyond good and evil.

Modern philosophy consistently begins with epistemology, and the epistemology with which it begins is based on the primacy of sense - experience.

These distinctions are important, because they help in part to explain why Rorty finally argues for an abandonment of epistemology altogether, whereas Palmer seeks to replace or supersede objectivism with another epistemology.

Family needs «and my boredom with epistemology prompted me to forswear graduate study and the academic career to which it pointed,» he said.10 (Although he never earned a Ph.D. degree, he was awarded eighteen honorary doctorates, including one from Oxford.)

Not exact matches

For examples of a rich humanity combined with keen philosophical analysis, I would recommend «Kant versus Sullivan,» a refutation of Kant's epistemology based on Annie Sullivan's treatment of Helen Keller; a review of B. F. Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity, «The Stimulus and the Response»; «The Inexplicable Personal Alchemy»; and her obituary for Marilyn Monroe.

This superior epistemology enjoys the firm foundation of divine revelation as treasured by Church Tradition and enlightened by faith and the prophetic inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as the Church, with all her members, engages the world in history.

Rather, I've pointed to the logical discrepancies both in your preferred epistemology and your conflation of a preferred theology with cosmology.

Dr. Peter Boghossian, professor of philosophy at Portland State University, in a great talk on faith - based epistemology: «I disagree with granting religious delusion as an exemption, and I want to mention there's a budding young scholar here at Portland State University, Renee Barnett [sp?]

John Searle chides the «cultural left,» one of the soi - disant labels for post-modern noncanonicalists, for confusing epistemology with ontology.

Epistemology has nothing to do with the discussion.

Appealing to mystics, poets and activists, she points to a different epistemology from that of modernity, a «connected knowing» that recognizes our intrinsic interconnection with all living things and awakens a reverence for life.

Until you explain and defend your epistemology in full, and be consistent with it, and explain why you're assuming its hegemony, I really don't buy that demand.

The existential phenomenologists and Whitehead reverse the modem priority of epistemology over ontology with the doctrine of primordial intentionality and prehension.

Meanwhile, Hartshorne's has two starting places: he is building a bridge over the river of doubt in his epistemology, while digging a tunnel under it from the other side with his metaphysics.

But an epistemology of the cross shares with feminist epistemologies the conviction that the place of the least favored — at the foot of the cross, in all its contemporary forms — is a better place to start knowing than any place of domination could be.

An epistemology of the cross would be more comfortable with the kind of «objectivity» described by philosopher Sandra Harding.

An epistemology of the cross owes its view of the created world to faith's conviction of the transformative solidarity of God with the world.

Instead, an epistemology of the cross seeks «to be with the victims.4 where it becomes possible to come to know, as theologian William Rankin wryly observes] that it is not the poor who are a problem to the rich but the rich who are a problem to the poor.

To begin with, an epistemology of the cross can not be used by knowers whose claims to objectivity are predicated on domination, for it harbors a deep suspicion of power - based knowledge claims and those who make them.

An epistemology of the cross shares with feminist epistemologies a deep conviction that we are accountable «non-innocents.»

Rather than conclude his ethical theory with insoluble problems of skeptical denial, I invoke a richer epistemology from Russell on which to base a constructive view of the virtues.

He has misunderstood the full significance of Buber's distinction, however, when he identifies the present with the I and the past with the It — and an important part of his epistemology is based on this identificafion.

Epistemology thus deals with knowing while phenomenology deals with experiencing.

One may need to look up words not used in ordinary conversation to understand what Berger means when he writes: «the problem of theodicy was solved in terms of eschatology» or «one should not confuse epistemology (i.e., knowledge) with historical gratitude.»

Developments in quantum mechanics (with its emphasis on probabilities, wave - particle duality, quantum teleportation of information and tunnelling, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) may prove a useful, if limited, tool in speculating about topics such as free will, communication, matter - spirit and epistemology.

HOLLOWAY»S REASONABLE EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT Dear Father Editor With regards to your September 2006 editorial («The Catholic Vision of Matter: Towards a New Synthesis») and the discussion arising out of it (recent Letters pages), it seems to me that a more fruitful frame of reference for the debate might be Thomas» epistemology.

Epistemology is the area of philosophy dealing with knowledge, how we know, sources of knowledge, and ways of knowing.

But the epistemology of Cartesian dualism with its foundational purification of the mind, even in its Kantian reconstitution, is unable to establish an ultimate grounding for the human sciences.

But if, as Guelzo writes, Royce built up a «vision of a «Blessed Community» aligned with God,» it is an abstracted notion of community grounded in a philosophically individualized epistemology.

They were all concerned with the same issues, notably reason and revelation, faith and history, issues of methodology and, especially, epistemology: how can we know God?

The investigation of the relationship between fat and perception is not a matter, I suppose, that formal epistemology concerns itself with; but in its words about the knowledge of God the biblical account is steeped in it.

David, are you familiar with the different theories of epistemology?

Thus, rather than raise objections, I shall consider briefly the tensions with respect to Bergson's metaphysics and epistemology I shall try to extend consideration of the senses in which intuitions are rational and may be inclusive of conceptual experience.

But this is very different from supposing that we must begin with modern epistemology and only raise questions about the reality of the world after we have explained epistemologically how those questions can be answered.

The type of Belief dealt with in epistemology is to believe something, simply means any cognitive content held as true in spite of the absence of proof or even evidence.

Now, Ruddick is extraordinarily careful to write of maternal thinking not as an ontological given but as a hard - won epistemology that emerges from engaging in maternal practices, and she specifically attacks the «idealized Good Mother,» pointing out that many mothers «who live in the Good Mother's shadow... come to feel their lives are riddled with shameful secrets that even the closest friends can't share.»

As with the discussion on epistemology, the two were separated by the ancient perspectives of monism and dualism.

In their metaphysics of the content of God's mind as with their respective epistemologies this fundamental divide prevented them achieving convergence.

I do not know whether he would have done this or not, since I believe that with his pragmatism he might have accommodated relativity physics without altering his epistemology, though I can not go into the question here.16 What seems to me clear is that the philosophical issues underlying Hartshorne's criticisms of Peirce can not be settled by theories of physics or the mathematics of continuity.

Haeckel, having been born again through his encounter with Darwin, suggests the epistemology of those stalwart members of the culture of faith, the romantic poets, who thought of themselves as sensitive reeds through whom the metaphysical truth of things pulsed like irresistible grace.

It is not enough with Peirce's epistemology to say merely that «an individual is something which reacts.»

Currently I am working on a series of articles on Christian ethics with a focus on moral epistemology from, yes, a Reformed Van Tilian perspective.

Now, before discussing with someone, it may be helpful to see if they share your epistemology.

Today the neo-Darwinist mechanism for evolution (centered on mutation and natural selection) is being discredited - and with it, the positivist epistemology.

To this end, the editors have included essays dealing with the historical connections between Wesleyan and process theology, the God - human relationship, the doctrine of the Trinity, concepts of divine power, epistemology, aesthetics, and the appropriate human responses to divine grace.

Although I am not entirely happy with Smith's recent books on science and religion, especially since they fail adequately to appropriate evolutionary thought, I think there is value in his own hierarchical vision and his critique of the epistemology of control.8

The neo-orthodoxy of the 1940s and «50s was bad enough when it tried to hold on to a revealed kerygma that no longer made contact with an increasingly secular world, but at least those theologians took seriously the larger questions of ontology and epistemology and sought for some meaningful overview.

With this renewed enthusiasm forThomist realism Jaki began to discover that, «whenever a great creative advance took place in science, one could notice that those chiefly responsible for that step cast their vote, however unconsciously, for a realist epistemology.