A Philosophical Hermeneutic Study of the Interview between Minister Louis Farrakhan and Imam W. Deen Mohammed: Toward a Fusion of Horizons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer has broadened the scope and manner of hermeneutic inquiry. By focusing on aspects of Gadamer’s hermeneutics such as dialogue, the hermeneutic circle, play, openness, and the fusion of horizons, this study sought to apply Gadamer’s ideas to an historic interview that took place between two notable Islamic leaders, Minister Louis Farrakhan and Imam Warith Deen Mohammed. By analyzing the dialogue of the interview and identifying the relevant Gadamerian concepts at play within the exchanges, it was determined that a fusion of horizons did in fact occur. By applying philosophical hermeneutics to a real world dialogic encounter with participants who harbored deep-seated, divergent views, the current study accentuates the use of philosophical hermeneutics as an analytic framework. This study also highlights the utility of using philosophical hermeneutics in inter and intra-faith dialogue specifically, and in the quest for understanding in general.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".