大神与大科学:对理论、数据和分析的进一步思考

IF 3.6 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION Religion Brain & Behavior Pub Date : 2022-06-29 DOI:10.1080/2153599X.2022.2065354
P. Turchin, H. Whitehouse, Jennifer Larson, Enrico Cioni, J. Reddish, D. Hoyer, Patrick E. Savage, R. Covey, J. Baines, M. Altaweel, Eugene Anderson, Pieter Bol, Eva Brandl, D. Carballo, G. Feinman, Andrey Korotayev, N. Kradin, Jill Levine, S. Nugent, A. Squitieri, V. Wallace, Pieter François
{"title":"大神与大科学:对理论、数据和分析的进一步思考","authors":"P. Turchin, H. Whitehouse, Jennifer Larson, Enrico Cioni, J. Reddish, D. Hoyer, Patrick E. Savage, R. Covey, J. Baines, M. Altaweel, Eugene Anderson, Pieter Bol, Eva Brandl, D. Carballo, G. Feinman, Andrey Korotayev, N. Kradin, Jill Levine, S. Nugent, A. Squitieri, V. Wallace, Pieter François","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2022.2065354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our target article empirically tested the Big Gods Hypothesis which proposes that beliefs in moralizing supernatural punishment (MSP) contributed to the evolution of socio-political complexity (SPC) in world history. We tested this hypothesis using a suite of measures of MSP, SPC, and other potential evolutionary drivers coded in Seshat: Global History Databank. Our analyses indi-cate that intensity of warfare and productivity of agriculture were major drivers in the evolution of both SPC and MSP. The correlation between social complexity and moralizing religion resulted from shared evolutionary drivers, rather than from direct causal relationships between these two variables. Most commentaries on the target article broadly accept our conclusions, but some argue that alternative measures might be used in future studies before the Big Gods Hypothesis can be conclusively rejected. In this response, we argue that while some of these alternative measures should be developed, they are closely related to the ones we have already adopted. Thus, it seems unlikely that further research will give rise to substantially di ff erent outcomes. A particularly fruitful aspect of the discussion is that it illustrates both the pitfalls and productive a ff or-dances of transdisciplinary research that seeks to bridge the “ two cultures ” of the humanities and sciences. Our target article has","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Big Gods and big science: further reflections on theory, data, and analysis\",\"authors\":\"P. Turchin, H. Whitehouse, Jennifer Larson, Enrico Cioni, J. Reddish, D. Hoyer, Patrick E. Savage, R. Covey, J. Baines, M. Altaweel, Eugene Anderson, Pieter Bol, Eva Brandl, D. Carballo, G. Feinman, Andrey Korotayev, N. Kradin, Jill Levine, S. Nugent, A. Squitieri, V. Wallace, Pieter François\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2153599X.2022.2065354\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Our target article empirically tested the Big Gods Hypothesis which proposes that beliefs in moralizing supernatural punishment (MSP) contributed to the evolution of socio-political complexity (SPC) in world history. We tested this hypothesis using a suite of measures of MSP, SPC, and other potential evolutionary drivers coded in Seshat: Global History Databank. Our analyses indi-cate that intensity of warfare and productivity of agriculture were major drivers in the evolution of both SPC and MSP. The correlation between social complexity and moralizing religion resulted from shared evolutionary drivers, rather than from direct causal relationships between these two variables. Most commentaries on the target article broadly accept our conclusions, but some argue that alternative measures might be used in future studies before the Big Gods Hypothesis can be conclusively rejected. In this response, we argue that while some of these alternative measures should be developed, they are closely related to the ones we have already adopted. Thus, it seems unlikely that further research will give rise to substantially di ff erent outcomes. A particularly fruitful aspect of the discussion is that it illustrates both the pitfalls and productive a ff or-dances of transdisciplinary research that seeks to bridge the “ two cultures ” of the humanities and sciences. Our target article has\",\"PeriodicalId\":45959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Religion Brain & Behavior\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Religion Brain & Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2065354\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion Brain & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2065354","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

我们的目标文章对大神假说进行了实证检验,该假说认为,对超自然惩罚的道德化(MSP)的信仰促进了世界历史上社会政治复杂性(SPC)的演变。我们使用一套MSP、SPC和其他潜在进化驱动因素的测量方法来测试这一假设,这些因素编码在Seshat: Global History Databank中。我们的分析表明,战争强度和农业生产力是SPC和MSP演变的主要驱动因素。社会复杂性和宗教道德化之间的相关性源于共同的进化驱动力,而不是这两个变量之间的直接因果关系。大多数对目标文章的评论广泛地接受了我们的结论,但一些人认为,在大神假说被最终拒绝之前,未来的研究可能会使用其他方法。在这一答复中,我们认为,虽然应该制定其中一些替代措施,但它们与我们已经采取的措施密切相关。因此,进一步的研究似乎不太可能产生完全不同的结果。讨论的一个特别富有成效的方面是,它说明了跨学科研究的陷阱和富有成效的跳跃,这些研究试图在人文和科学的“两种文化”之间架起桥梁。我们的目标文章是
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Big Gods and big science: further reflections on theory, data, and analysis
Our target article empirically tested the Big Gods Hypothesis which proposes that beliefs in moralizing supernatural punishment (MSP) contributed to the evolution of socio-political complexity (SPC) in world history. We tested this hypothesis using a suite of measures of MSP, SPC, and other potential evolutionary drivers coded in Seshat: Global History Databank. Our analyses indi-cate that intensity of warfare and productivity of agriculture were major drivers in the evolution of both SPC and MSP. The correlation between social complexity and moralizing religion resulted from shared evolutionary drivers, rather than from direct causal relationships between these two variables. Most commentaries on the target article broadly accept our conclusions, but some argue that alternative measures might be used in future studies before the Big Gods Hypothesis can be conclusively rejected. In this response, we argue that while some of these alternative measures should be developed, they are closely related to the ones we have already adopted. Thus, it seems unlikely that further research will give rise to substantially di ff erent outcomes. A particularly fruitful aspect of the discussion is that it illustrates both the pitfalls and productive a ff or-dances of transdisciplinary research that seeks to bridge the “ two cultures ” of the humanities and sciences. Our target article has
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
13.60%
发文量
93
期刊最新文献
Autonomous neural network activation during religious worship experiences using heart rate variability measurements The role of religion in adolescent mental health: faith as a moderator of the relationship between distrust and depression Religion evolving: applying system theory to a case of blood libel Religion without scare quotes: cognitive science of religion and the humanities Steps towards a more holistic, dynamic and integrative approach to the evolution of religious systems
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1