Ignacio Adrian Lerer has posted Epistemological Clergies: When Orthodoxy Blocks Rational Debate on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Why is rational debate about criminal or labor law reform impossible in certain jurisdictions
This article proposes that dominant legal doctrines function as secular religions with memetic architectures immune to rational debate.
Applying Daniel Dennett’s framework on religion as natural phenomenon, I argue that extreme criminal guarantism, orthodox abolitionism, and unconditional defense of labor ultraactivity exhibit religious structures: (1) sacralization of concepts, (2) conversion of empirical disagreements into moral transgressions, (3) exclusion through costly signaling, and (4) ideological purity blocking gradualism.
Quantitative analysis of 150 observations (50 jurisdictions × 3 legal domains) reveals strong negative correlation between clerical orthodoxy and reform effectiveness (r =-0.78, p < 0.0001). Argentina (CSI=0.89) achieves 0% reform success versus Chile (CSI=0.23) with 63% success. Uruguay eliminated labor ultraactivity achieving superior worker outcomes. Extreme cases: Venezuela (CSI=0.835, REI=0.125) versus New Zealand (CSI=0.305, REI=0.615).
Structurally, “epistemological clergies” (journals, chairs, associations) exhibit endogamic citation rates (87.3%) doubling hard sciences (34-42%), filtering epistemic competition through gatekeeping that privileges doctrinal purity over empirical effectiveness.
I propose Pragmatic Harm-Reduction Framework measuring success by verifiable harm reduction rather than doctrinal purity. Debate impossibility is not accidental but adaptive mechanism protecting memeplexes from competition. Complete dataset and replication materials publicly available at GitHub repository: https://github.com/adrianlerer/Extended-Phenotype-Institutionalism-contribution