A persistent sociological thesis posits that the spread of formal education causes an inevitable decline in religion as a social institution and diminishes adherence to religious beliefs in postindustrial society. Now that worldwide advanced education is a central agent in developing and disseminating Western rationality emphasizing science as the ultimate truth claim about a humanly constructed society and the natural world this seems an ever more relevant thesis. Yet in the face of a robust “education revolution,” religion and spirituality endure, (...) and in certain respects thrive, thus creating a sociological paradox: How can both expanding education and mass religion coexist? The solution proposed here is that instead of educational development setting the conditions for the decline and eventual death of religion, the two institutions have been, and continue to be, more compatible and even surprisingly symbiotic than is often assumed. This contributes to a culture of mass education and mass religion that is unique in the history of human society, exemplified by the heavily educated and churched United States. After a brief review of the empirical trends behind the paradox, a new confluence of streams of research on compatible worldviews, overlapping ideologies, and their enactments in educational and religious social movements illustrates the plausibility of an affinity argument and its impact on theory about post-secular society. (shrink)

Concepts of decision, choice, decision-maker, and decision-making are common practical tools in both social science and natural science, on which scientific knowledge, policy implications, and moral recommendations are based. In this article I address three questions. First, I look into how present-day social scientists and natural scientists use decision/choice concepts. What are they used for? Second, scientists may differ in the application of decision/choice to X, and they may explicitly disagree about the applicability of decision/choice to X. Where exactly do (...) these disagreements lie? Third, I ask how scientists should use decision/choice concepts. What are they correctly and incorrectly used for? I argue that scientists must responsibly attend to a methodological demand: you have to have a principled, non-ad hoc, well-argued-for way of telling where decision/choice applicability ends. Thus, I aim to minimize the risk of conceptual stretching and foster responsible conceptual practices in a large body of scientific work. (shrink)

Düşünce deneylerine bilimlerde sıkça rastlanmaktadır. Bu deneylerin kullanımı her ne kadar Sokrates öncesi döneme kadar götürülebilse de, on yedinci yüzyılın başından itibaren Galileo, Newton ve Leibniz gibi bilim adamları bu zihinsel araçların önemini kavramıştır. Günümüzde ise, şüphesiz görelilik fiziği ve kuantum mekaniğinde düşünce deneyleri merkezi bir role sahiptir. Bu makalenin amacı bilimsel akılyü-rütmenin bu önemli aracını felsefi bir noktadan hareketle incelemektir. İlk olarak düşünce deneylerine ilişkin kısa bir tarihsel arka plan sağlayarak, bilimlerde kullanımı ele alacağım. Daha sonra iyi bilinen bir (...) düşünce deneyi örneği üzerinden bu deneylerin sergilediği temel özellikleri göstereceğim. Son olarak, düşünce deneylerinin sahip olduğu birçok temel işlevi bazı örnekler üzerinden inceleyeceğim. (shrink)