The importance of being Ernesto: Reference, truth and logical form
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many years ago, in the Nineties, we three editors of this book attended a philosophy of language class taught by Ernesto Napoli.Ernesto's style was unconventional, at least compared with the standards we were used to.He stood there, asking questions and making objections to our attempts at an answer.He could be intimidating at times, and not all of our fellow students seemed to appreciate his approach.But for those of us who got those classes right they have remained memorable.Ernesto was taking us, and even more philosophy, seriously.This made a world of difference.Looking back on it, we do not think there was a plan behind this attitude.As anyone who has come into contact with him knows, Ernesto just loves to discuss things and argue.To him, this is the most natural and straightforward way to understand something.It comes as no surprise, then, that he took it to be the most natural way to teach, too.In a sense, it is part of Ernesto's intellectual style to literally wrestle with the ideas he stumbles upon.Passive acceptance is not an option.Ditto for partial acceptance, or compromise.Even acceptance under hypothesis is suspicious -an altogether too-frivolous game to qualify as serious philosophizing.Ernesto is just too earnest for all this.Seriousness and earnestness are moral qualities.When we qualify Ernesto's approach to philosophy as serious and earnest, we do not mean that he never indulges in jokes or tricks.The point is, rather, that Ernesto
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".