Truth and Science Reconsidered. An Encounter with: Paul Franco, <i>Nietzsche’s Enlightenment: The Free-Spirit Trilogy of the Middle Period</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important current in contemporary Nietzsche Studies is the attempt to rehabilitateNietzsche for philosophers more at home in Anglo-American traditions, many of whom have found it too easy dismiss Nietzsche as irrational and unimportant.Central to the rehabilitation effort is a renewed focus on the works that comprise Nietzsche's so-called middle or "positivistic" period: Menschliches, Allzumenschliches (1878); rgenr the (1880); and Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft (1882). 1 It was during this time that Nietzsche was most friendly to science and most concerned with truth as an object of philosophical pursuit, and so perhaps most amenable to what has become the Anglo-American tradition.Paul Franco's book, Nietzsche's Enlightenment: The Free-Spirit Trilogy of the Middle Period, aims to enter this conversation through a close study of the middle period works, revealing a Nietzsche attentive to the concerns that motivated the European Enlightenment Franco references in his title.Franco aims to show that these concerns with science, reason, and truth remain important to Nietzsche in his post-Gay Science works.That is, although Nietzsche is most at home in the Enlightenment tradition during his middle period, he never abandoned this aspect of his thought for a wholesale rejection of science, human reason, and the possibility of
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".