Notes on the epistemological rupture between scientific and natural thought
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article revisits the concept of epistemological rupture by questioning the stark division between scientific and non-scientific thought. Drawing on the theory of representation, it contends that both forms of knowledge are socially constructed, moulded by communication, norms and group dynamics. Rather than labelling non-scientific thought as flawed or regressive, the discussion shows how decontextualization and recontextualization processes apply equally to everyday ‘natural’ knowledge and formal science, exposing the social and historical contingencies shaping concepts. Consequently, rupture appears less a sudden break than a gradual threshold reached through dialectical transformations in cognition and society. Rather than conferring total superiority on science, ruptures highlight how certain discourses gain legitimacy while others become ‘non-knowledge’. The article concludes that science's dominance reflects broader power relationships and evolving modes of production and validation. By situating epistemological rupture within these processes, it illuminates how different knowledge forms coexist, evolve and sometimes conflict in stratified social fields—ultimately challenging a simplistic binary between scientific progress and supposedly primitive or natural thought. This viewpoint opens new possibilities for examining the shifting boundaries between rational explanations and the shared beliefs shaping collective reality and daily life.
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 | 0.034 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.143 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| 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".