Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very little scholarly attention has been devoted to Part 1 of Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.1 This lack has been addressed recently by Tweyman, who argues for the importance of this part in understanding the positions defended by the characters in the remainder of the dialogue,2 in accordance with the types that Hume discusses in part 12 of the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding3—Cleanthes is philosophical dogmatist who requires the application of excessive skepticism by Philo to turn to the approved position of mitigated skepticism, while Demea is and remains religious dogmatist. In the present paper I will address the question of why the Dialogues continues beyond Part 1 in the face of the statement by Philo, who is generally considered to be Hume's spokesperson in the dialogue, that the inquiry being undertaken—the investigation into the nature of the Deity—is beyond human reason. According to Philo, human reason ought not to conduct inquiries into subjects such as theology, whose objects of study are too great for, or beyond, human experience. It would seem, then, that if Philo's position is the acceptable one, the dialogue should not take place at all—determining the nature of the Deity is just not an appropriate exercise for human reason. According to Cleanthes, however, there is parallel between theological inquiries and those of other, accepted sciences where evidence is presented and appropriate conclusions drawn in proportion to that evidence. Rejecting an equality between sciences is a plain proof of prejudice and passion, as there is no rational basis for that rejection.
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 | 0.035 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".