La menace des oiseaux : l’iconicité et la ressemblance des images à l’ère du relativisme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the critical tests for the analogical status of images has been animal perception. If animals are fooled by images, then images — and many works of art — not only are symbolic objects, but also keep an iconic relation to the perceived world. This hypothesis has now been proven by forty years of research in neurobiology and cognitive science. Nevertheless, numerous philosophers and art historian keep defending the purely symbolic and conventional status of images. This paper seeks to understand why. What motivates this refusal, not only of recent scientific research, but of common sense ? What is threatening about the iconic status of images ? I analyze the way in which both W.J.T. Mitchell and Danièle Cohn argue against Pliny’s telling of the mythical competition between Parrhasius and Zeuxis, whose painting of grapes fooled birds. This fictional anecdote becomes a real and practical test for the anti-analogical perspective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".