Homa Yazdani; Ali Paya; Lotfollah Nabavi
Abstract
In this study, we shall assess the claim concerning the negative effect of sin and positive effect of grace on proper function of reason and cognitive faculties through the lens of the Calvinist tradition and the Reformed Epistemology. Although the noetic effect of sin has already been discussed probably ...
Read More
In this study, we shall assess the claim concerning the negative effect of sin and positive effect of grace on proper function of reason and cognitive faculties through the lens of the Calvinist tradition and the Reformed Epistemology. Although the noetic effect of sin has already been discussed probably by tracing the role of the non-epistemic factors in acquiring knowledge in general, approaching the issue by focusing on ‘scientific knowledge’ is novel and, to the best of my knowledge, has not been attempted before. This study will be developed by means of an evaluation of Stephen Moroney’s project. Through a critical survey of the views of a number of prominent Christian theologian, he tries to develop a model for the cognitive influence of sin. In our review of his work from the canons of Critical Rationalism, we shall try to show that Moroney's conclusions are inconsistent with his explanation of the effect of sin on the natural sciences. Our main arguments are as follows: what Moroney describes as scientific knowledge from a Christian point of view is more a technological awareness rather than scientific knowledge proper. Furthermore, it is the scientist who is affected by sin and not his scientific claim.
lotfolah nabavi; Nima Ahmadi; Seyyed Mohammad Ali Hodjati
Volume 3, Issue 5 , September 2013, , Pages 99-118
Abstract
Bayesians believe that they have solved a significant problem in philosophy of science, which is the identification of the logic which governs evidences. The problem has special importance to philosophy of science, because what eventually distinguishes science from myth is that we have good evidence ...
Read More
Bayesians believe that they have solved a significant problem in philosophy of science, which is the identification of the logic which governs evidences. The problem has special importance to philosophy of science, because what eventually distinguishes science from myth is that we have good evidence for the content of science. The core ideas of all versions of Bayesian confirmation theory are that the beliefs are confirmed to a probability measure, and incorporating new evidence is done through conditionalization using Bayes’ rule. Bayesians believe that qualitative approaches to confirmation theory are hopeless; an adequate account of the way evidences support hypotheses and theories must be quantitative, and a quantitative account implicates utilizing the probability calculus. The aim of this paper is to investigate the challenges to confirmation theory by means of the standard Bayesian approach.
