Epistemic Evaluation of Religious Claims in Public Schools: A Response to Suzanne Rosenblith
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The position the authors challenge in this article, one most notably advocated by Suzanne Rosenblith, suggests that religious study has a legitimate place in public education if and only if teachers and students grapple with the epistemic superiority of competing theistic claims. In this rejoinder, the authors propose that Rosenblith's suggestion faces 3 insurmountable hurdles to become an achievable education objective: (1) Rosenblith fails to articulate how religious claims might be evaluated epistemologically. Instead, she candidly admits there are presently no “clearly identifiable standards by which to measure religious and moral claims.” (2) In the absence of “clearly identifiable standards” to evaluate religious truth claims an untenable situation is created for schools, parents, students and teachers. Rosenblith's attempt to evaluate competing religious claims may foster increased conflict between different religious traditions. (3) The foundation, or “wider context,” required to support religious truth claims is itself epistemologically problematic.
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 | 0.047 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.045 | 0.069 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".