MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999155323 · doi:10.1177/000842980103000308

Is Kai Nielsen becoming a Wittgensteinian fideist?

2001· article· en· W1999155323 on OpenAlex
Colin Grant

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicKarl Barth and Christian Theology
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionNaturalismTheismPositivismEpistemologyFaithPhilosophyRationalityArgument (complex analysis)Theology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his recourse to a later Wittgensteinian or postmodern social focus, Kai Nielsen relinquishes the analytic argument he once took to be supportive of his naturalistic outlook. This shift raises the question of how he can continue to demand rationality of theistic visions that he no longer expects for his own naturalistic outlook. Rather than a rational naturalism and a fideistic theism, what seems to be involved are two coherent visions that are seen to be rational by different people. If the visions are this basic and comprehensive, however, what we come to ultimately, it would seem, is a basic faith, fideism. This is not the arbitrary fideism that Nielsen dismissed as Wittgensteinian fideism; it is a fideism that defines what it is to be rational, but it does this for Nielsen's naturalism as well as for religious visions. In this way, Nielsen's recourse to the social in the wake of the failure of positivism exposes his own fideistic base.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it