Bibliographic record
Abstract
One reviewer of A House Divided remarks that in my contribution, a lead-up article to this book, it is Davidson who emerges as “the real hero” (Prado 2003a, 2003b; Lackey, forthcoming). This is because, in considering the question of confirmation or justification and reality's role, Davidson, while never coming close to impugning realism, nonetheless cogently argues that the only reason we can have for holding a belief is another belief, and that there is no possibility of demonstrating the truth of a belief or sentence by comparing it with some bit of extralinguistic reality. Though more problematic in several ways, Foucault's position is importantly similar to Davidson's. The basic similarity between Davidson and Foucault is found in the latter's holding that discursive truth and the establishment of discursive truth in confirmation are separated from brute reality by the fact that brute reality plays no epistemic role in the determination of truth despite its essential role in the causing of belief. Brute reality enters the confirmation picture only when we fail at what we try to do, when the world's disposition impedes or defeats action based on our beliefs and assertions. In Searle's example about his keys being on the table, the brute reality of the keys being on the table does not confirm his belief. The disposition of the world is as it is, and its role is limited to causing awareness and belief; the disposition of the world does not also play a confirmatory role.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".