Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kritický racionalismus je v české akademické diskusi spojován především se jménem sira Karla R. Poppera. Cílem tohoto článku je komparativně rozšířit tento obraz prostřednictvím myšlenek Hanse Alberta, Popperova následovníka v německé jazykové oblasti. Konkrétně bude diskutována problematika rozlišení kontextu objevu a kontextu zdůvodnění. Na základě vybraných problémů, s nimiž se Popper nedokázal zcela vypořádat, bude ukázáno, jak tyto problémy do své koncepce involvuje a jak je řeší Albert. Zajímavý na tomto srovnání je především fakt, že Albert pojímá původně filosoficko-vědní problémy v širším filosofickém rámci. Díky tomu se mu podařilo uchopit kritický racionalismus – jak sám Popper uznal – s odstupem a v nových souvislostech. In the Czech academic environment, the critical rationalism is associated above all with the name of Sir Karl R. Popper. The aim of this paper is to comparatively extend this view via thoughts of Popper’s German follower Hans Albert. Specifically, the issue of the distinction between context of discovery and context of justification will be discussed here. Against the background of selected problems, which Popper did not adequately solve, I will demonstrate how Albert involves these problems in his own conception and how he solves them. The interesting fact about this comparison is that Albert approaches the originally philosophical-scientific problems in a wider philosophical context. Thanks to this wider context he grasps the critical rationalism from a distance and in new connections, as Popper accepted himself.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".