Neither “True Being” nor “Cosmic Pyrotechnics”: Dewey’s Naturalistic Metaphysics as Environmental Pedagogy Aid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing primarily on John Dewey’s Experience and Nature, but putting his metaphysical commitments into conversation with pedagogical experience, this article asks: how might a Deweyan understanding of nature and our experience within it support environmental progress? More specifically, how might we respect pluralistic relationships with philosophy in the classroom while simultaneously cultivating an understanding of experience that clarifies the embodied nature of our meaning-making within it and the contextual urgencies of today? How might observing the “generic traits of existence” and their particular and qualitative manifestations foster an appreciation for how the natural world acts as wellspring of human values? For Dewey as well as William James, experience is “double barreled,” designating both the “planted field” and “the one who plants and reaps”: functional distinctions serve a purpose, but experience emerges at, and astride the tensional energies that characterize, the permeable boundaries of self and world. Taking Dewey’s insights to heart illuminates how issues like biodiversity preservation are deeply existential concerns that are ripe for a Deweyan pedagogical intervention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".