Philosophical arguments for religious pluralism – including that of John Hick – are outlined. It is noted, however, that the question of ontology, as explored within the philosophy of science, has not been included in these arguments. The views of ontology in scientific description that are associated with the work of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn are outlined, but a deeper insight, it is argued, may be developed through the work of Mary Hesse and of Rom which suggests insurmountable limitations to our grasp of the ontology of created things. This understanding may be extended, it is argued, to God (or what Hick calls Reality) so that an attitude of ‘apophatic critical realism’ may be applied both to God (as it is in Eastern Orthodoxy) and to created entities. (In relation to God, something comparable can, it is noted, be found in certain Western Christian scholars such as Yves Congar.) This understanding, in its theological component, may be applied to apparent incompatibilities between different faith traditions, such as that between ‘personal’ and ‘non-personal’ and between ‘monotheistic’ and ‘polytheistic’ understandings.

Science always has occupied a special niche in society because of its perceived and proven truth value, which comes from its ostensibly unbiased, rigorous, accurate, precise, dispassionate, and metaphysical nature. After all, isn't science practiced in laboratories and universities quite apart from the "real world," the world of opinion, supposition, business, politics, and religion? But is it? As discussed in this chapter, the answer is "no," because science, in many senses, is a social endeavor, one subject to the vagaries of personal bias, the quest for recognition and funding, peer and social pressure, and tradition. Science may indeed be special relative to other endeavors, but this does not mean that its product – knowledge – should be accepted without question. Science can be wrong, but only temporarily, as it is a self-correcting enterprise that, in light of continual hypothesis testing, eventually fixes its own errors.

We begin by demonstrating the importance of the ideas of Karl Popper to corpus linguistics. On that basis we begin an exploration of his ideas in order to understand both his account of the scientific method and how this method may illuminate aspects of the corpus-based approach to the study of language.

This chapter outlines the ways in which the philosophy of science handles the problem of inconsistency in scientific theorising. After raising this problem in ,will summarise the standard view of inconsistency in the analytical philosophy of science (SVI). In , we will touch on the break with the standard view of inconsistency in the analytical philosophy of science as initiated by Kuhn and continued by Lakatos and Laudan.will discuss the most recent trends that re-evaluate the emergence and the presence of inconsistencies in scientific theorising.will draw the conclusions that serve as guidelines for the next steps of our train of thought.

Verification and falsification are standard techniques for the evaluation of truth claims. Both are problematic because they rest on shifting understandings of these concepts and their operationalization. Science as a practice offers an alternative and more sophisticated approach to assessment.

Peter Zachar argues that one of the challenges to accurate empathic understanding that Campbell identifies, that these imaginative reconstructions might be fictional just-so stories, is not resolved by one of his proposed solutions – adopting R. G. Collingwood’s critical approach to writing history by reconstructing the thoughts and motivations of important historical figures. In contrast to the notion of reconstructing another’s internal thought processes, Zachar claims that most of the information we use to understand others is based on third-person information, which is largely how psychotherapists are taught to understand others. He compares this process to Karl Popper’s notion of critical rationalism.