Search

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00942.x Byline: Nicholaos Jones (1) Keywords: evidentialism; falsification; metaphysics; scientific method; theology Abstract: Abstract. In this reply to Gregory Peterson's essay 'Maintaining Respectability,' which itself is a response to my 'Is Theology Respectable as Metaphysics?' I elaborate upon my claims that theology treats God's existence as an absolute certainty immune to refutation and that modern science constitutes the canons of respectable reasoning for metaphysical disciplines. I conclude with some comments on Peterson's 'In Praise of Folly? Theology and the University.' Author Affiliation: (1)Assistant Professor of Philosophy, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 332 Morton Hall, Huntsville, AL 35899; e-mailNick.Jones@uah.edu.

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00940.x Byline: Nicholaos Jones (1) Keywords: epistemology; evidentialism; falsification; metaphysics; modern science; rationality; respectability; scientific method; scientific reasoning; theological reasoning; theology Abstract: Abstract. Theology involves inquiry into God's nature, God's purposes, and whether certain experiences or pronouncements come From God. These inquiries are metaphysical, part of theology's concern with the veridicality of signs and realities that are independent from humans. Several research programs concerned with the relation between theology and science aim to secure theology's intellectual standing as a metaphysical discipline by showing that it satisfies criteria that make modern science reputable, on the grounds that modern science embodies contemporary canons of respectability for metaphysical disciplines. But, no matter the ways in which theology qua metaphysics is shown to resemble modern science, these research programs seem destined for failure. For, given the currently dominant approaches to understanding modern scientific epistemology, theological reasoning is crucially dissimilar to modern scientific reasoning in that it treats the existence of God as a certainty immune to refutation. Barring the development of an epistemology of modern science that is amenable to theology, theology as metaphysics is intellectually disreputable. Author Affiliation: (1)Assistant Professor of Philosophy, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 332 Morton Hall, Huntsville, AL 35899; e-mailNick.Jones@uah.edu.

Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) promises a relatively objective and tractable methodology for ranking the plausibility of competing hypotheses. Unlike Bayesianism, it is computationally modest. Unlike explanationism, it appeals to minimally subjective judgments about relations between hypotheses and evidence. Yet the canonical procedures for ACH allow a certain kind of instability in applications of the methodology, by virtue of supporting competing rankings despite common evidential bases and diagnosticity assessments. This instability should motivate advocates of ACH to focus their efforts toward creating structured methods for individuating items of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]