Post-Foundationalism and Human Uniqueness: A Reply to Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: J. Wentzel van Huyssteen responds to eight essays that are related either by methodological or content considerations to his post-foundationalist approach to transversal rationality. The essay underscores the fact that human rationality is a shared resource for dialogues between theology and the sciences and that at the heart of Christian theology are multi-layered concerns that allow also for contextuality and thus eschew abstract or over-generalized approaches in its interdisciplinary discourses. The response is appreciative yet discerning enough to clarify a number of points, including his understanding of epistemic status and cognitive parity and issues of revelation, creation, imago Dei, deep incarnation, Logos Christology, human uniqueness, and sexuality.
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 | 0.016 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".