The Reversibility of Skepticism, or Unlimited Reason: Maimon's Skepticism Compared to that of the “New Humeans”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paradoxalement, rares sont les philosophes sceptiques de l ’ époque moderne – depuis Descartes – à avoir revendiqué le terme de scepticisme « de manière constante », c ’ est-à-dire sans le dénier, l ’ amoindrir ni le rejeter à un autre moment de leurs œ uvres. Aussi étonnant que cela puisse paraître de prime abord, seuls deux philosophes – avant le « renouveau sceptique » qui marque la philosophie analytique contemporaine de ces trente dernières années – ont vraiment assumé le terme sans l ’ atténuer par ailleurs. Ces deux philosophes, contemporains l ’ un de l ’ autre, sont les post-kantiens : Schulze (dit Énésidème) et Maimon. Cet article se propose, d ’ une part, de définir ce scepticisme que tous deux assument de « manière constante ». Une fois élucidé le sens de leurs positions, il se propose, d ’ autre part, de les mettre en regard avec une forme plus contemporaine de scepticisme. Cette mise en perspective permet, ultimement, de dévoiler la cohérence et la consistance du scepticisme transcendantal de Maimon face à la position de ceux qu ’ on appelle aujourd ’ hui les « nouveaux humiens ».
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".