Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bruce Langtry has written a rigorous book that makes important contributions primarily to two debates in contemporary philosophy of religion, over whether the hypothesis of ‘no best world’ poses a problem for theists, and the more traditional problem(s) of evil. In addition, the book has interesting and original things to say about the relationship between possible worlds and value, the correct understanding of the divine attributes, and the question of how different theistic models of divine providence hold up in different dialectical contexts. Langtry's careful attention to how one's choice of model bears on the success of objections to theism is especially helpful and deserving of emulation. Ch. 1 is stage‐setting: Langtry distinguishes three leading theistic models (Molinism, theological determinism, and open theism), and while remaining neutral between them, draws out consequences of each which are relevant for his project. Defenders of each view might well have concerns about Langtry's presentation, but this need not detain us here. Ch. 1 also contains his understanding of the fundamental theistic doctrine that God is the creator of the world. Langtry takes this to mean that God chooses a possible world, and then causes it to be actual by exercising tight providential control over (nearly) every contingent state of affairs it contains. Langtry is of course free to stipulate the definition of terms for his project. But one unfortunate implication of his definition of ‘create’ is that theists who do not think that God exercises tight providential control over the creation (open theists in particular) cannot say that God creates a world, something many of them would no doubt be surprised to learn.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".