This paper is a critique of the "Critical Remarks on the two concepts of religious science and indigenous knowledge". The author of that paper, taking a Popperian stance, argues against the concept of religious Science. My paper shows that this view is not sufficient to negate the “religious Science”; because Popperian criticism does not make scientific theories –containing the metaphysical notions - free of metaphysical doctrine. The critics are organized on the Popper’s Second World; so, they, themselves, may be organized in the context of metaphysical doctrines. This paper concludes with a brief review of two scholars who defend the term “Religious Science” to argue that, at least in some areas, constructing any scientific theory without a clear standing on religious Worldview is not possible
Taqavi, M. (2012). A critique of “Critical comments concerning the notions of “Islamic Science” and “Indigenous Science”. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 18(71), 45-68.
MLA
Mostafa Taqavi. "A critique of “Critical comments concerning the notions of “Islamic Science” and “Indigenous Science”". Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 18, 71, 2012, 45-68.
HARVARD
Taqavi, M. (2012). 'A critique of “Critical comments concerning the notions of “Islamic Science” and “Indigenous Science”', Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 18(71), pp. 45-68.
VANCOUVER
Taqavi, M. A critique of “Critical comments concerning the notions of “Islamic Science” and “Indigenous Science”. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2012; 18(71): 45-68.
)