From Knowledge to Ontological Awakening: Thinking Nature as Relatedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I examine the ontological valuation of what-stands-on-its-own in relation to the problem of thinking Nature beyond empirical reductionism and conceptual solipsism. Exploring the roots of this ontological valuation in Hellenistic philosophy, and its subsequent repositioning within the Christian doctrine of Creation, I suggest that the emergence of an externalist ontology has facilitated the rise of a paradigm of knowledge gradually discarding ontological or metaphysical objects of knowledge (such as Nature) because non-amenable to the criteria of functionalism and empirical fallibilism. I conclude this paper by suggesting that a relational ontology may offer an alternative to formulate an expression of Nature that can better resonate with our ecological findings in terms of ontological interdependency and interrelatedness, while avoiding the peril of both essentialism, reductionism and solipsism when it comes to thinking Nature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".