Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparison, as a method in the study of religion, has received considerable criticism in recent years. Much of the discussion addresses what we call the dilemma of religious comparison: either similarities between the cases compared are real and the differences accidental, or the differences are real and the similarities merely apparent. The first path is held to artificially impose similarity by wrongly privileging one of the things being compared, which imposes an essentialist view, taking its characteristic as the measure of all comparable cases. The other path exaggerates differences between comparands, undermining the very premise of comparison. We argue that this apparent dilemma presupposes a representational conception of meaning, namely that the task of comparison is to discover what kind of thing is represented by the cases being compared. However, there are other conceptions of meaning that might can potentially avoid or resolve the dilemma, by reorientating the basic conception of comparison, as opposed to entering into details of recent critical debates. This article argues that interpretationism, an approach to meaning associated with philosopher Donald Davidson does just this. JZ Smith did not explicitly adopt any semantic theory. But we demonstrate that he implicitly endorsed all of its main elements in his work on comparison. Smith’s writings represent a rich and detailed model of how comparison can be carried out under an interpretationist semantics. This article has two important implications for the study of religion. First, it dissolves the dilemma of religious comparison, suggesting a firmer theoretical and methodological basis for comparative studies. Second, it underlines that Smith’s work serves as a powerful and practical model of comparative method, as constructed on this basis. As a corollary, an interdisciplinary side-benefit, reading Smith in light of Davidson also makes important contributions to philosophy of language.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".