Role of Logic and Mentality as the Basics of Wittgenstein’s Picture Theory of Language and Extracting Educational Principles and Methods according to this Theory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">The present paper attempts to recognize principles and methods of education based on Wittgenstein’s picture theory of language. This qualitative research utilized inferential analytical approach to review the related literature and extracted a set of principles and methods from his theory on picture language. Findings revealed that Wittgenstein believed in language as a picture of the real and assumed that the real is reflected in language. He believed that language and mentality are the same and language demonstrates a full picture of mentality. Besides, the world and the language possess a logical structure and this logic rules the world and the language. Later on, his picture theory of language, logic and mentality were used to extract and introduce principles for education as listed here: the reasonability principle, mind involvement principle, matching principle, reasoning principle, creativity principle and formation of mind, comprehensibility principle, liberal thinking principle, and the principle of considering individual differences. Thus, applying the method of concept comprehension, problem oriented method, heuristic method, brainstorming method and finally interactive methods like Socratic question and answer and group discussion method.</p>
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it