Humean Scepticism as an Alternative in the Moral Realism and Moral Anti-Realism Debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, the realism and anti-realism debate within metaphysics has been restricted to a dichotomy between realism and anti-realism.This dichotomy trickles down to more specific areas within the debate.One of these areas effected by the traditional realism and anti-realism dichotomy is moral realism and moral anti-realism.This thesis focuses on moral realism and moral anti-realism, and shows that restricting the debate to only moral realism and moral anti-realism is a false dichotomy.It does this through providing an alternative option to the two traditionally given: Humean Scepticism.The goal of this thesis is to argue that Humean Scepticism is a viable third option in the moral realism and moral antirealism debate.This thesis demonstrates that scepticism should sometimes be taken seriously and acknowledged in some debates that it has traditionally been excluded from.Research Seminar.This thesis also would not have been possible without the Department of Philosophy Administrator, Sandra Kirkpatrick, and the Department of Philosophy Graduate Administrator, Kristopher Waddell.I have said this many times, but I will say it again: Sandy and Kris are like the parents of the department, keeping us all organized.Secondly, I would like to thank my cohort
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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".