The questions that I address are: ‘What ought to become of Religious Education (RE)?’ and ‘To what extent do non-religious beliefs belong in RE?’ I will argue that there are compelling reasons for studying religious and non-religious views alongside each other, but that there are serious objections to doing this in the context of any subject called ‘religious education’ and that a new compulsory, national curriculum subject called Ethics would be an appropriate context for such study.

Popper has provided a model for the scientific explanation of human actions and a metaphysical theory of man which can guide scientific research. In this paper I discuss the problems of the empirical content and nomicity of the Rationality Principle and extend the method of situational analysis to the problem of explaining beliefs. The domain of applicability of the Rationality Principle is bounded on one side by cases in which behavior is determined by processes which can not be influenced by (...) criticism and on the other side by the phenomenon of substantive creativity. However, a large part of human activity lies within its scope. (shrink)

Abstract Popper's philosophy of science represents a radical departure from almost all other views about knowledge. This helps account for serious misunderstandings of it among admirers no less than among adversaries. The view that knowledge has and needs no foundations is counterintuitive and apparently relativistic. But Popper's fallibilism is in fact a far cry from anti?realism. Similarly, Popper's social and political philosophy, although seemingly conservative in practice, can be quite radical in theory. And while Popper was an ardent democrat, his (...) reasons for supporting democracy were so unusual that they may escape the problem posed for democratic theory by the political ignorance of the demos. (shrink)

SummaryThe present paper attemps to demonstrate an analogy between the metascientific, i. e. epistemological, concepts of Niels Bohr and Jean Piaget. To make such a comparison possible a general model of an open circular process of acquiring knowledge is proposed including the following stages: generalization of a successful theory, origin of implicit assumptions, counter‐examples, disclosure of implicit and tacit assumptions ; attempts to eliminate counter‐examples, cul‐de‐sac, emergence of competing theories, explication of fundamental notions, distinction between narrower and broader theories. Parallelly, (...) historical exemplifications on each stage are given. Finally, the argument is advanced that scientific epistemology is only possible at the expense of re‐defining ≫science≪ in such a way that it would cease to be science in its strict classical sense on which the claim to this name has been based so far. (shrink)