Transversal Rationality: The Challenge of Assigning ‘Cognitive Parity’ to the Sciences and Theology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: J. Wentzel van Huyssteen uses Calvin Schrag's notion of transversal rationality to argue for a “cognitive parity” between the sciences and religion, implying a degree of separation and equality that can be problematized. Drawing on Lawrence Blum's criticism of Charles Taylor's “The Politics of Recognition,” this essay argues that culture and its diverse products, like science and religion, cannot be treated as abstract totalities to which a value can be determined and affixed. Instead, we could focus on what distinctive values are realized by the cultural form in its own right, rather than compelling a comparison using a language of equivalency. This shift in focus from “equal respect” to “cultural respect” does not mean that one cultural form is superior to the other, only that the framework of equivalency be jettisoned. Science and theology operate in different but shared dimensions, such that science might better be understood as a tool within the larger theological enterprise. The problem, then, is not the universalism of science but the exclusivity of scientism. Science should be understood then as a source within theology, in the same manner as human experience, tradition, and Scripture, and approached using rational judgment, in dialogue and discernment within a believing community.
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 | 0.033 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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".