History as a Canceled Problem? Hilbert Lists, du Bois-Reymond’s Enigmas, and the Scientific Study of Religion

Ambasciano, Leonardo; Coleman, Thomas J.

doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfz001

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If we look at the most recent, high-profile feats of CSR 2.0 researchers most interested in "lower-case big data" historical-religious research, we can see how their propensity for mathi-ness5 has led them to entirely avoidable epistemological and methodological shortcomings. Suffice it to recall here the recent retraction of Whitehouse, et al's (2019) Nature Letter entitled "Complex Societies Precede Moralizing Gods Throughout World History", and all the various critical voices from scholars and academics denouncing the cul de sac of such "experimental" historiographical works (e.g., Ambasciano 2017b; Ambasciano and Coleman 2019;Slingerland, et al, 2018Slingerland, et al, -2019Beheim 2021;Patzelt 2021;Naether 2021;Rüpke 2021;Smith 2021;cf. Whitehouse, et al, 2021).…”

Section: Mathinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Eclipse of Morality: A Riposte to Lane, Wildman, & Shults’ “Paying the Piper” Commentary

Ambasciano

2022

Method Theory Study Relig.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Mathinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Eclipse of Morality: A Riposte to Lane, Wildman, & Shults’ “Paying the Piper” Commentary

Ambasciano

2022

Method Theory Study Relig.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4. Full disclosure: prior to the preparation of the whole "Discussion" section, one of us had co-authored an article in which some of the most urgent epistemological and methodological issues with the current Big Data and computational approaches in historiography were identified and discussed (Ambasciano and Coleman 2019).…”

Section: Appendix: "Toxic Traditions" -Extended Open Callmentioning

confidence: 99%

Big Data, Cognitive Biases, Horror Tropes, and Think Tanks

Ambasciano¹,

Roubekas

2020

JCH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present introduction is designed to offer a quick walkthrough of the various scholars’ contributions to the present issue of the Journal of Cognitive Historiography. Among the articles included, two are related to our Extended Open Call for Papers on the topic of “Toxic Traditions: Pathological and Maladaptive Beliefs, Biases, and Behaviours throughout Human History”, i.e., an analysis of the maladaptiveness of theistic beliefs in the Anthropocene and a neuroanthropological examination of the ancient cult of Cybele and Attis. Other articles cover the presence of religious-based cognitive biases and logical fallacies in Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid’s works and the neurocognition of the Stoic silent prayer as recorded by Roman philosopher Seneca. An entire section is dedicated to the critical discussion of both method and theory of Seshat: Global History Databank. The issue also includes a thought-provoking and interdisciplinary conversation on horror studies, a précis, a commentary, and four cutting-edge book reviews. The background to the topic of the call for papers is herein available as an appendix.

show abstract

“…The psychology of religion has frequently been criticized due to the inevitability of researchers' predispositions toward the subject matter biasing their research (Ladd & Messick, 2016;Messick & Farias, 2019;Wulff, 1998). In addition, researchers have argued that the field has potentially been slanted in a pro-religious direction due to religiously-motivated organizations funding a substantial amount of the field's research (Ambasciano & Coleman, 2019;Bains, 2011;Wulff, 2003). However, these issues may be less widespread today than they once were.…”

Section: Why the Field Of Psychology Of Religion?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Researcher Degrees of Freedom in the Psychology of Religion

Charles

Bartlett

Messick

et al. 2019

The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a push in psychology toward more transparent practices, stemming partially as a response to the replication crisis. We argue that the psychology of religion should help lead the way toward these new, more transparent practices to ensure a robust and dynamic subfield. One of the major issues that proponents of Open Science practices hope to address is researcher degrees of freedom (RDF). We pre-registered and conducted a systematic review of the 2017 issues from three psychology of religion journals. We aimed to identify the extent to which the psychology of religion has embraced Open Science practices and the role of RDF within the subfield. We found that many of the methodologies that help to increase transparency, such as pre-registration, have yet to be adopted by those in the subfield. In light of these findings, we present recommendations for addressing the issue of transparency in the psychology of religion and outline how to move toward these new Open Science practices.

show abstract

History as a Canceled Problem? Hilbert Lists, du Bois-Reymond’s Enigmas, and the Scientific Study of Religion

Cited by 10 publications

References 77 publications

The Eclipse of Morality: A Riposte to Lane, Wildman, & Shults’ “Paying the Piper” Commentary

The Eclipse of Morality: A Riposte to Lane, Wildman, & Shults’ “Paying the Piper” Commentary

Big Data, Cognitive Biases, Horror Tropes, and Think Tanks

Researcher Degrees of Freedom in the Psychology of Religion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About