Reviving reasonableness: Expansive reason-giving and receiving for global social justice education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reasonableness is a term that is used widely in relation to global social justice, yet its meaning differs depending on its theoretical foundations. In this paper, I examine the breadth of these meanings, focusing on the pedagogical significance of reasonableness as something that is assessed, recognized and enacted. I present a model of reasonableness that expands upon Erman’s (2007) concept of reason-giving and is founded upon the philosophy of inter-subjective recognition as described by Honneth (1996) and the idea of capabilities as theorized by Sen (2009) and Nussbaum (2005). I develop a typology of reason-giving and reason-receiving, including arbitrary, emotive, authoritative, tentative and expansive analytical-relational modes. I conclude that the assertion of another person’s reasonableness / unreasonableness may be viewed as an inter-subjective and intercultural lived relation. Approximating the cosmopolitanism proposed by Nussbaum (2005) and Appiah (2006), I propose that we should aim to create learning approaches and environments that foster exploratory and compassionate reason-giving and receiving. In an era of global social justice discourse and action, I argue that cultivating a reflective approach to reason-giving and receiving would develop in students an expansive conception of and capacity for reasonableness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".