John Dewey, Lloyd Morgan et l’avènement d’un nouveau naturalisme pragmatico-émergentiste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peut-on raisonnablement penser qu’un même phénomène naturel, comme l’esprit par exemple, puisse en même temps être continu et discontinu avec les processus physico-chimiques qui conditionnent son advenue au monde ? Autrement dit, est-il possible de construire une philosophie de la nature qui rejette simultanément la dichotomie métaphysique et la pure identité , c’est-à-dire qui se situe sans contradiction sur la ligne de séparation entre le dualisme et le matérialisme ? En y répondant par l’affirmative, John Dewey et Lloyd Morgan, deux pionniers respectifs du pragmatisme et de l’émergentisme au siècle dernier, ouvrirent la voie d’un nouveau naturalisme antiréductionniste. L’objectif de cet article est, d’une part, de montrer comment ces deux auteurs cherchèrent à relever ce défi en mobilisant le concept d’émergence ; d’autre part de préciser la nature des divergences d’interprétation et d’usage du concept chez Morgan et Dewey.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".