THE HOPE OF THE GOSPEL: THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION AND THE NEXT EVANGELICALISM. By Mark S.Young. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2022. Pp. xiii + 137. Softcover, $16.30.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WAYFAIRING THROUGH DESPAIR.By Ashley Moyse.New York: Anthem Press, 2022.Pp. x + 152.Hc $125.00.Moyse's critique of Western medicine begins with the story of his mother's stroke, entrance into hospice, and eventual death.He argues that medicine's focus is maintaining the strength and function of individual bodies in order to maintain their autonomy and independence.Hence, medicine sees bodies as a collection of reparable individual systems.Because pain also threatens autonomy, medicine comes to view it as foreign to the human condition, and something that should be eliminated by technological intervention.The medical focus on autonomy causes it to ignore the development of meaningful frameworks for living for individuals who become frail or dependent.This leads dependent individuals prone to despair, which contributes to efforts to legalize medical-aid-in-dying to promote "death with dignity".However, Moyse argues that if we can let go of our desire for control, we can finding meaning and hope by viewing life as an unfolding mystery in the company of others.Moyse underestimates the relational impact of persistent frailty.Even with diligent care and support, losing mobility, memory, and speech makes relating to others difficult.This failure is crucial since he claims that relationships prevent the despair, he finds so problematic.Medicine cannot cure loneliness, or frustrations arising from the inability to remember the names and faces of family members.He powerfully argues that the ill find dependence difficult, because we do not learn to be interdependent when well.We can only learn interdependence by learning to pay attention and attend to others in need.I should have engaged Moyse literature on how technology makes attending more difficult.In addition, Moyse gives an idealized portrait of caregiving, failing to acknowledge caregiving's physical and emotional demands.Care requires more than attention.One can recognize the needs of a frail other but lack the physical capacity to respond.This reality also causes despair.Even resolute caregivers who value the work they do suffer isolation, exhaustion, and sometimes physical injury because of their caregiving, something the book fails to acknowledge.Moyse asserts, without evidence, that society holds individuals responsible for their frailty.As a clinician, I see individuals whose choices contribute to their frailty, and real meaning can only be made when that reality is named, Moyse does not discuss pain's ability to destroy our capacity for relationships and meaning-making.Nor does he adequately defend his assertion that the desire to avoid pain means that we deny our interdependence and finitude.Patients use pain medications because they recognize their frailty and interdependence.Medicine cannot provide meaning or hope.However, medical specialties such as palliative care can use medical tools to help patients maintain relationships and be interdependent but not incapacitated, a reality Moyse does not explore.Moyse powerfully argues why medicine must expand its focus beyond
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".