Add epistemology and institutional prejudice research track

notes/research_tracks/epistemology_and_institutional_prejudice/ARTICLE_INTEGRATION_MAP.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+# Article Integration Map
+
+## Purpose
+
+This file maps where the epistemology / institutional prejudice framework should enter articles and books.
+
+It is meant to prevent the theme from being forgotten or used only in scattered remarks.
+
+## Primary uses
+
+### 1. Methodology sections
+Use this track early in major essays or books to explain that disputes are not only about evidence, but also about frameworks.
+
+### 2. Transitional sections
+When objections arise, use this track to explain that some objections reflect prior judgments about what kinds of evidence are allowed to count.
+
+### 3. Conclusion sections
+Use this track to help readers connect scholarly filtering with the ordinary institutional prejudice they already recognize in daily life.
+
+## Strongest article targets
+
+### A. Articles on canon and authority
+Use this track to explain:
+- why “not canon” is often treated as the end of discussion
+- why authority and use are more complicated than that
+- how institutional assumptions pre-sort texts into acceptable and unacceptable categories
+
+### B. Articles on Enoch in relation to the New Testament
+Use this track to explain:
+- why conceptual dependence is often minimized
+- why anomalies are downgraded
+- why some uses of Enochic tradition are treated as incidental instead of substantive
+
+### C. Articles on inspiration and hermeneutics
+Use this track to explain:
+- why crude models of inspiration distort reading
+- why texts must be read on their own terms
+- why inherited doctrinal packaging can obscure what is actually present
+
+### D. Articles on comparative material
+Use this track to explain:
+- why parallels with ANE or Second Temple sources often trigger defensive reactions
+- why similarity is not automatically corruption
+- why institutional fear of contamination can impair honest reading
+
+## Book-level integration
+
+## Early chapter
+Include a methodology chapter covering:
+- assumptions
+- testimony
+- authority
+- paradigms
+- anomaly management
+- institutional filtering
+
+## Mid-book reminders
+Use short reminders when a major anomaly appears and is likely to be resisted for institutional rather than textual reasons.
+
+## End-of-book reflection
+Show readers that the issue is not only textual interpretation but epistemic permission:
+what readers are allowed to see, ask, and conclude.
+
+## Reusable themes
+
+- evidence is not self-interpreting
+- institutions rank credibility in advance
+- anomalies are often managed before they are evaluated
+- “serious scholarship” can sometimes function as a gatekeeping label rather than a neutral description
+- people inherit frameworks before they inherit arguments
+
+## Notes for future drafting
+
+This framework should remain balanced.
+Do not use it as a shortcut around evidence.
+Use it to explain how evidence is filtered, not to replace close argument.

notes/research_tracks/epistemology_and_institutional_prejudice/INDEX.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# Epistemology and Institutional Prejudice
+
+## Purpose
+
+This research track studies how institutions shape what counts as evidence, what questions are respectable, what authorities are trusted, and what anomalies are ignored or minimized.
+
+It exists to support the broader research portfolio by explaining why disputes are often not merely about facts, but about frameworks, credibility assignment, and inherited assumptions.
+
+## Scope
+
+This track will especially support work on:
+
+- Enoch and Second Temple literature
+- canon and authority
+- inspiration and hermeneutics
+- institutional filtering of evidence
+- anomaly management in scholarship
+- lay explanation of prejudice embedded in systems
+
+## Core Idea
+
+Institutional prejudice often appears before formal argument. It works by assigning credibility in advance.
+
+## Current Files
+
+- `LAY_EXPLANATION.md`
+- `ARTICLE_INTEGRATION_MAP.md`
+- `SOURCES.md`
+
+## Planned Dossiers
+
+- Kuhn and paradigm / anomaly management
+- Properly basic belief and hidden assumptions
+- Testimony and authority
+- Institutional prejudice as credibility filtering
+- Worldview-shaped evidence

notes/research_tracks/epistemology_and_institutional_prejudice/LAY_EXPLANATION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+# Lay Explanation
+
+## Plain-language summary
+
+People often imagine that institutions gather evidence first and then form conclusions.
+
+In reality, institutions also teach people what counts as evidence in the first place.
+
+They teach:
+- what questions are serious
+- what sources are respectable
+- what methods are legitimate
+- what conclusions are safe
+- what anomalies can be ignored
+
+That means prejudice does not always look like open hostility. Sometimes it looks like a system that quietly treats certain people, questions, or sources as less credible before evaluation is complete.
+
+## Simple definition
+
+**Institutional prejudice** is a durable pattern in which a group or institution treats some questions, persons, methods, or sources as less credible before serious evaluation is complete.
+
+## Everyday examples
+
+### Medicine
+A patient says something is wrong, but the report is discounted because it does not fit the standard model.
+
+### Education
+A student asks an important question, but the teacher treats it as a distraction because it does not fit the accepted lesson frame.
+
+### Workplaces
+A good idea is ignored because it came from the wrong person or department.
+
+### Churches
+A sincere question is treated as dangerous because it sounds unfamiliar or threatens inherited assumptions.
+
+## Why this matters for research
+
+The same thing can happen in scholarship.
+
+A field can decide in advance:
+- what sources are too fringe to matter
+- what comparisons are embarrassing
+- what questions are disreputable
+- what conclusions serious people are not supposed to reach
+
+This is why evidence alone does not settle every dispute. Evidence is interpreted through a framework.
+
+## Why this matters for Enoch research
+
+Enoch debates are often not only about texts.
+
+They are also about:
+- what kinds of texts are allowed to matter
+- whether Second Temple material is permitted to illuminate Scripture
+- whether non-canonical works may still be conceptually important
+- whether anomalies in the New Testament are allowed to trouble inherited models
+
+## Balanced caution
+
+This does **not** mean:
+- institutions are always wrong
+- outsiders are always right
+- consensus is worthless
+
+Institutions preserve real knowledge.
+
+But the same systems that preserve knowledge can also preserve blind spots.
+
+## Key takeaway
+
+The issue is not whether people have assumptions.
+
+Everyone does.
+
+The real issue is whether those assumptions are acknowledged and whether institutions allow awkward evidence to be heard fairly.

notes/research_tracks/epistemology_and_institutional_prejudice/SOURCES.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+# Sources
+
+## Core sources to add
+
+### Thomas Kuhn
+Use for:
+- paradigms
+- normal science / normal problem-solving
+- anomaly management
+- crisis and framework change
+
+### Alvin Plantinga
+Use for:
+- properly basic belief
+- foundational assumptions
+- rational belief not reducible to explicit proof chains
+
+### William Lane Craig
+Use for:
+- accessible apologetic bridge material
+- public-facing discussions of warranted belief and rational theism
+
+### Michael Polanyi
+Use for:
+- tacit knowledge
+- personal participation in knowing
+- community-shaped standards of judgment
+
+### Hans-Georg Gadamer
+Use for:
+- pre-judgment
+- tradition-shaped understanding
+- interpretive horizons
+
+### Imre Lakatos
+Use for:
+- research programs
+- hard core vs auxiliary adjustment
+- gradual protection of central commitments
+
+### Testimony / social epistemology sources
+Use for:
+- credibility
+- witness
+- trust
+- institutional authority
+- distribution of knowledge
+
+## Key concepts to track
+
+- paradigm
+- anomaly
+- crisis
+- properly basic belief
+- testimony
+- authority
+- institutional prejudice
+- worldview-shaped evidence
+- credibility assignment
+- gatekeeping
+
+## Notes
+
+Plantinga should be treated as primary for properly basic belief.
+Craig may be used as a secondary bridge for lay accessibility, but should not replace Plantinga as the main source on that point.
+
+This file should later grow into a fuller bibliography with:
+- publication details
+- key quotations
+- short source summaries
+- relevance notes for article integration