Bibliographic record
Abstract
The true being that becomes an object of love for us in art is finally the true being of the human spirit itself. Albert Hofstadter The difference between truth and untruth … cannot be reduced to … vouching for the Being … of people and things. Herman Rapaport The European schools of thought that analytic philosophers love to hate are antiscientistic. The love-hate relation is reciprocal. This is so of existentialism, the best-known school of continental philosophy in Beardsley's day. It is also so of deconstruction, perhaps the most prominent continental counterpart to contemporary analytic and postanalytic philosophy. But such stylized polarizations overlook continuities between the apparent opponents and fail to recognize how one side serves to correct the other. A contemporary attempt to theorize artistic truth cannot afford to be shortsighted in these ways. Instead it should foster a dialogue between the analytic and continental schools, both of which have come to recognize the limitations of empiricistic scientism. To surpass those limitations with regard to artistic truth requires an alternative to the propositionally inflected correspondence theory of truth that sustains Beardsley's metacritical denial. Continental philosophy has something to offer in that regard. Initial clues to an alternative come from two directions, both of which oppose the restriction of truth bearers to propositions or their equivalents. One is Albert Hofstadter's more expansive version of correspondence theory, which incorporates elements from what Beardsley labels Revelation Theory and Intuitionist Theory into an existential affirmation of artistic truth (section 2.1).
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.014 |
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".