“We Argued for a Long Time — Until the Tears of Stress…” (Scientific Controversy in the Community of Russian Logicians on the Pages of Public Press in the Early 20th Century)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The paper discusses some aspects of logics development in Imperial Russia from the point of communication within the academic community. The author analyzes the tradition of writing critic books in response to the works of colleagues. The urgency of the research is determined by the fact that it is important to reveal traditions and patterns of the communication strategies within the academic community. The aim of the paper is to show the huge potential and value of polemic motivation to initiate publication activity of university scientists and academics. Numerous primary sources of the first quarter of the 20th century are used in the research. Many of them were not republished. The discussions that took place between debaters, colleagues or friends (A.I. Vvedensky – N.O. Lossky – S.I. Povarnin – I.I. Lapshin) and those who had personal grudge against their opponents (I.S. Prodan – A.I. Vvedensky), are reconstructed. A whole number of examples proving that Russian logicians in the early 20th century used monographs, handbooks, and papers as a platform for scientific disputes and exchange of opinions, including those with the international scientific community, are provided. The controversy in books was a kind of “distance” conference unfolded in time. Based on the results of the research, conclusions were made that the general situation with logics in the early 20th century is the time of extensive scientific discussions that often proceeded outside the classrooms. The academic community focused controversy in its diverse forms on various ideas generated by the most competent authors of that time. There was a specific canon for writing responses, i.e., following the opponent’s logic step by step, as well as revealing inaccurate citation, shift of emphasized thoughts, or even plagiarism. It seems important from the obtained results that, despite the tough style of retorts addressed to opponents, the strategies of opponency in monographs, handbooks, and papers provided technically for the search of some common foundations in subsequent research. The dispute of this type was an individual contribution to the accretion of knowledge and ranking of concepts. Books, as a reply, ensured a certain degree of responsibility in discussions; every word left its impression in the history of science. The results of the study are very important for researchers investigating social history of establishment of logics as a science, history of development of the Russian academic community, and strategies for holding scientific disputes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,025 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».