Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The Pölitz transcripts of Kant's lectures from the 1780s on rational theology contain a fascinating discussion of modality: On this point rests the only possible ground of proof for my demonstration of God's existence, which was discussed in detail in an essay I published some years ago. Here it was shown that of all possible proofs, the one that affords us the most satisfaction is the argument that if we remove an original being, we at the same time remove the substratum of the possibility of all things. – But even this proof is not apodictically certain; for it cannot establish the objective necessity of an original being, but establishes only the subjective necessity of assuming [ annehmen ] such a being. But this proof can in no way be refuted, because it has its ground in the nature of human reason. For my reason makes it absolutely necessary for me to assume a being which is the ground of everything possible, because otherwise I would be unable to know what in general the possibility of something consists in [ worin etwas möglich sey ]. (Pölitz RT, Ak. 28:1034) The “essay published some years ago” to which Kant here refers is his 1763 work The Only Possible Ground of Proof in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God (henceforth, OPG ). While the exact interpretation of that work is controversial, it is clear that he there defends an interconnected set of claims about possibilities and their grounds: (1) It is logically possible that p iff p does not entail a contradiction. This is the definition of logical possibility. (Ak. 2:77) (2) Not all logical possibilities are real possibilities (Ak. 2:77, 85). Kant does not explicitly offer a developed theory of what real possibility is, but it is clear that real possibility is more “metaphysically robust” than mere logical possibility. He also lays down certain conditions on it. For instance, (3) If it is really possible that p then some existing being grounds the fact that it is really possible that p (Ak. 2:78, 79). As with (2), Kant does not explicitly offer a developed theory of the relation between real possibilities and their grounds.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; 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".