Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Critical realism (CR) has served as a benchmark in science-theology dialogue as a way of determining similar rational structures in these disciplines. One implication has been that Theology has a parallel form of verification to that of the natural sciences. However, defenders of CR in Theology have not clarified how this might be the case and so critics of CR have noted numerous alleged shortfalls in thinking of Theology objectively from a pragmatist perspective. This paper describes some of these criticisms, especially the more nuanced perspective of J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, whose concern for hermeneutics and epistemology is well suited to CR. Taking several cues from the theory of retroduction in the work of philosopher of science Ernan McMullin and the philosopher theologian Bernard Lonergan, this paper proposes a more explanatory form of CR that takes hermeneutical issues seriously while also retaining a cognitive focus on judgment. It is the capacity to judge, in the form of verified theories in science and theological doctrines, where a true parallel exists between theology and the natural sciences. The paper ends by noting a number of themes in Lonergan’s magnum opus Method in Theology, where theological doctrines are capable of being explanatorily true whilst remaining subject to revision, analogous to the status of verified theories in the natural sciences.
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 | 0.019 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".