Blind Obedience: Paradox and Learning in the Later Wittgenstein * By MEREDITH WILLIAMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meredith Williams is unimpressed by ‘constructive/theoretical’ and ‘resolute/therapeutic’ approaches to the Philosophical Investigations (1). She takes Wittgenstein’s repudiation of speculation in philosophy seriously but resists interpreting him as engaged in a purely critical endeavour. There is, she holds, ‘a complex interweaving of the diagnostic and positive’ and ‘[a] consequence of the critical diagnostic work is a positive picture’ (313). Taking the Investigations to be ‘a highly structured argumentative text directed to pursuing a fundamental new problem in philosophy’ (3), Williams interprets Wittgenstein as resolving ‘the problem of normative similarity’ (12), i.e. the problem of how meaningful goings-on differ from brute physical happenings. She suggests that ‘Wittgenstein’s diagnostic method is tied to his use of two powerful arguments (3). By uncovering hidden contradictions and exposing grammatical errors, she argues, Wittgenstein shows that important philosophical theories of language and the mind are ‘self-defeating’ and ‘[i]n removing them, [his] “normative naturalism” can be seen’ (315).
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".