Bibliographic record
Abstract
I shall argue that when Hume refers to the laws of dynamics, he tacitly assumes a mechanism.Nevertheless, he remains agnostic on whether the hidden micro-constitution of bodies is machinelike.Hence this article comes to the following conclusion.Hume is not a full-blown mechanical philosopher.Still his position on dynamic laws and his concept of causation instantiate a tacitly mechanical understanding of the interactions of bodies. Hume's references to the laws of dynamicsHume refers to LoD in his Treatise, in his Enquiries, and in his Dialogues.4 Before rushing into his treatment of these laws, let me issue a word of caution.It would be convenient to list Hume's references to LoD with the aid of a contemporary axiomatic exposition.Today we can portray the dynamics of the 17 th and 18 th centuries in the form of four basic laws: Newton's three laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation.In approaching Hume's position, we could look at a contemporary exposition and compare it to his listing of LoD.However, it would be insufficient, even misleading and anachronistic, to use this approach to understand Hume's position on LoD.Establishing the foundations of classical physics as we now know it took some hundreds of years.What the early moderns had at their hands was rather different as what we have today.Nowadays, when we open a physics textbook, we find a plethora of interconnected concepts: Force, impulse, momentum, energy, heat, power and work, to mention a few. 5 There is a scarce number of definitions or laws from which these concepts can be derived from.Different dynamic notions have precise meanings, and they are clearly related to each other.It would be a momentous task to figure out how exactly our present exposition of classical physics differs from (or agrees with) early modern natural philosophy.This is not my task in this article.Here it suffices to say that the list of propositions concerning physical laws in the early modern world was not the exact same list as we have today.There were still some serious debates between the Cartesians and the Newtonians about how to organize such a list.This ambivalence is also apparent in Hume.It can be explained by his education.It included the study of Newtonian natural philosophy with the texts of Newton's disciples John Keill
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".