Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is often claimed that the idea of toleration emerged from and depends upon a Protestant context that limits its usefulness today. These claims implicate the political thought of John Locke, clearly a key figure for the history of toleration, and also an emphatically Protestant one. The fullest support for the claim in question is offered by Jeremy Waldron's God, Locke and Equality, which argues that the idea of equality on which Locke based his case cannot be separated from its religious foundations. Taking issue with Waldron's view, this article argues that in the course of defending toleration Locke came to advance an idea of equality that may be termed ‘dialogical’, in that it rested on the equality that is necessarily presupposed by argumentative exchange. While that idea of equality is fully consistent with Locke's Protestantism, it does not, the article argues, depend upon it. Rather, it depends on the minimum requirements of shared citizenship. Civil equality is modelled, in Locke's defence of toleration, on what is presupposed by shared membership in political society, and no religious view is indispensable to it. Moreover, while the ‘Protestant’ reading of Locke may seem unique in introducing an element of compulsion, the ‘dialogical’ reading may introduce as much compulsion as is needed for the purposes of contractualist political theory.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".