Bibliographic record
Abstract
An interdisciplinary team of scientists--including an archeologist, a geologist, a chemist, and a toxicologist--has argued that ethylene intoxication was the probable cause of the High Priestess of Delphi's divinatory (mantic) trances. The claim that the High Priestess of Delphi entered a mantic state because of ethylene intoxication enjoyed widespread reception in specialist academic journals, science magazines, and newspapers. This article uses a similar interdisciplinary approach to show that this hypothesis is implausible since it is based on problematic scientific and textual evidence, as well as a fallacious argument. The main issue raised by this counterargument is not that a particular scientific hypothesis or conjecture turned out to be false. (This is expected in scientific investigation.) Rather, the main issue is that it was a positivist disposition that originally led readers to associate the evidence presented in such a way that it seemed to point to the conclusion, even when the evidence did not support the conclusion. We conclude by observing that positivist dispositions can lead to the acceptance of claims because they have a scientific form, not because they are grounded in robust evidence and sound argument.
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 | 0.090 | 0.207 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".