A Primer in Interdisciplinarity: J. Wentzel van Huyssteen and the Post-Foundational Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Understanding the relationship between theological and scientific reasoning is a longstanding problem in the history of Western theology. Two paradigmatic modes of thinking—foundationalism and non-foundationalism—have shaped this discourse and have on the whole hindered, in J. Wentzel van Huyssteen's estimation, fruitful interdisciplinary dialogue. In response to the unchecked affinity for scientific rationality of the former and the relativism of the latter, van Huyssteen proposes a third way to understand interdisciplinary interaction between theology and the natural sciences—post-foundationalism. This approach promises to open a new way of understanding human reasoning by placing interdisciplinary concerns at its core and giving theology a strong public voice. This essay surveys some aspects of van Huyssteen's post-foundationalism, including an orientation to his understanding of foundationalism and non-foundationalism and their interdisciplinary potential.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".