Zwi Werblowsky, the IAHR, and <i>Religionswissenschaft</i> as ‘Basic Science’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this essay I set out to defend the objectives of the International Association for the History of Religions (IAHR) to promote ‘religious studies’ in the modern university as a rigorous scientific enterprise in search of descriptive, explanatory, and theoretical knowledge of religious thought and behaviour. More often than not, however, the discipline has been, and currently still is, presented as a ‘life-enhancing-discipline.’ At the tenth IAHR world congress held in Marburg Germany in 1960, the conflict between these incommensurable approaches to the study of religion was resolved by the adoption of a set of ‘basic minimum presuppositions’ for the scientific agenda of the Association. In 2019, the Executive Committee of the IAHR again proposed an expansion of the IAHR’s mandate to include moral, theological, and political concerns. This paper calls for a reaffirmation of the framework for the field adopted in Marburg in 1960.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".