Animism and Science

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title of the paper we evaluated relates to its content, and the manuscript requires neither additions nor reductions. The author addresses the relationship between animism and science using language that is accessible to the target audience. The abstract of the manuscript corresponds with its contents. The content is organised well, and the topic is innovative and significant in light of the most recent research in the field.
Evidently, the author has a thorough understanding of prior research on the same topic and makes use of relevant material and sources.
In addition, he uses exact concepts, methodologies, and terminology.
The research's objective, methods, key findings, and conclusion are consistent, and the paper is written with scientific rigour, analytical depth, clarity, and conciseness. In addition to the epistemological dimension, particularly towards the end of the work, the ethical (bioethical) character of the work is also evident, which is important to society as a critique of today's scientifically emphasised, often usurping approach to created reality.
I would propose that the author add some additional keywords below the summary.

Author Response

• I added some keywords.
•  

Reviewer 2 Report

Referee Report on Animism and Science

I recommend accepting this paper. It argues that some prima facie obvious reasons to deny animism on the grounds of scientific practice may not be quite as compelling as you’d think. Whilst the paper could be better—I think this line of argument has more to it than presented here, and that there are more charitable objections to be considered—it does do a competent job and makes a contribution to the literature.

A few comments follow which I would expect to be remedied by the point of publication:

·       Lines 31-41: ChatGPT is not an appropriate source for a published article, particular because the chat script often generates falsehoods! Please replace this with genuine citations to articles published in peer reviewed venues.

·       Various typos.

o   Line 253 it should be ‘of ability’.

o   Line 276 ‘by’ not ‘be’

o   Line 284. Something went wrong. Correct this line, I don’t understand it

o   Line 291 Should it be ‘in other’ entities not ‘to other entities’?

o   Line 304 There is a double space where one space should be

o   Line 332 Capital W on when

o   Line 394 In ‘a setting’ no ‘in setting’

o   Line 471 Needs ‘and’ between authors names?

o   Line 480 Bibliographic information absent. Please insert

o   Line 498 Misspellings. Also, refer to the citation advice for citing Stanford entries—information is missing here.

Author Response

• I replaced the reference to chatgpt to other sources.
• I made the textual changes.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is not a good idea to compare science and animism. What is the motivation for this? What are the readers supposed to learn?

The A presents two problems. The first solution is fine, although it is a non-original and uninteresting truism.

The second one is untenable. It is a dramatically mistaken idea that scientists would not love and respect their research objects. Think of oceanologists and zoologists. They love their sharks and monkeys. They study them to protect them. They fight for them. What about modern medical research? At its best, it expresses love and compassion. Scientific instrumentalism is not a norm. And instrumentalism is many different things.

This paper is not tenable at all. It addresses a pseudo-problem. At the same time, it contains some information on animism.

The text needs careful proofreading.

Author Response

• I added claims of one author opposing the first conflict. This serves to illustrate the point that compatibility with regards to this is not a truism. It also serves to motivate the paper. I also note common sensical versions of the first conflict but these are harder to track.
• I elaborated on the second conflict, providing arguments that contemporary science puts different goals (i.e. knowledge for knowledge's sake) above the needs of plants, animals and objects. This goes beyond claiming that scientists cannot love their objects or subjects of study. Providing reverence in line with animism require a good deal more. I added more details to make this clear.
• Both of the above are reasons to deny that I am discussing pseudo-problems