MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734049745 · doi:10.5840/philtoday201769164

Today's Psychotic Academy

2017· article· en· W2734049745 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Creston Davis

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophy Today · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiofield Effects and Biophysics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychoanalysisPsychologyPhilosophyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At a 2011 Google Zeitgeist conference, Stephen Hawking boldly said, is dead.1 And it is dead essentially because it's passe. Hawking's thinks that philosophy is like a guy who shows up at a cocktail party at dawn after the guests left. But why would such a presumably intelligent professor say this? His reasons were made obvious: Philosophers, Hawking says, have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly Philosophy is outmoded because Prometheus's inspiring torch has been stolen yet again, but this time not from Zeus, but from the philosophers: Scientists become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. So according to Hawking, it's as if the conversation about the truth of the world only rests in the hands of elite physics professors funded by multinational corporations and national governments. But why should we believe this? After all this new pronouncement comes from the literal mouthpiece of science's talking head that capaciously speaks for all of us. Could it be that some category mistake has been committed by the likes of Hawking who mistakes philosophy for theology?It is becoming more and more clear that philosophy is not people think it is, which according to Slavoj Žižek, is traditionally conceived of as [S]ome crazy exercise in absolute truth. . . . No Žižek continues, I think philosophy is a very modest discipline. Philosophy does not solve problems: duty of philosophy is to show how we experience as a problem is a false problem2 Philosophers deal less with absolute truth claims, like Hawking thinks, and more with issues like the meaning of freedom and why something doesn't seem to make sense, like for example the crisis of learning and education endemic in our post-industrial society.It is clear that there is a systemic phobia against philosophy reigning today, which is seen not only in the simpleton sentiments expressed by Hawking, but even on a mass cultural level. Think, for example, of the translation of J. K. Rowling's first novel in the Harry Potter series, which was originally published in England as The Philosopher's Stone but was innocuously changed to The Sorcerer's Stone in the United States and Canada. Once again we must ask why? And the reason is straightforward. The marketing executives were afraid the book sounded too much like a philosophy textbook and for this reason was surely not going to sell. But the fact is that this seemingly innocent title translation uncovers as much about the uneducated elite marketing executives on Madison Avenue as it does about the general Zeitgeist about how we refuse to think. Substituting the British title reveals this because the original one actually refers to a real historic object whose meaning is central to fully understanding the plot of the story itself. Is not this move indicative of a fear about the action of thinking today in its dialectical relationship to history?In addition to this one need only observe the anemic history of philosophy in America, which is decisively geared to the pragmatist school concerned with what works while ignoring the radical nature of philosophy's ability to think and call into question how, for example, things in history come to emerge in this way and not in another way. It is clear from these examples that America seems only concerned with questions that already answers and thus puts philosophy and thinking into the tame existence, safely labeling it a department in a university or college. This phobia further illuminates something much more insidious about the cultural unconscious, namely that the practice of thinking is not only feared, but contains within itself the seeds of revolutionary possibilities which pose a direct threat to the ruling ideology of capitalism and its embodied materialist form as State. And does this too not diagnose why America is obsessed with what works, which only further accelerates a psychotic logic of economic growth at all costs (war, violence, stealing, colonializing etc. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.012
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0050.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0970.030

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophy TodaySame topicBiofield Effects and BiophysicsFrench-language works237,207