Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dewey argues that Russell is wrong to think there is a legitimate philosophical problem concerning our knowledge of the external world. He further claims that Russell’s attempt to ground knowledge on self-evident claims presupposes a theory of experience that science has discredited. In reply, Russell argues that Dewey’s criticisms are irrelevant to scientific epistemology properly understood and that far from being undermined by contemporary science, the epistemological questions he addresses are forced on us by contemporary physics. I argue that far from settling their differences, the exchange between Dewey and Russell shows that their disagreement is more profound than either of them acknowledges. Dewey does indeed misunderstand Russell’s epistemological project. Yet Russell misidentifies the source of Dewey’s error and as a result fails to appreciate the appeal of the approach to epistemology Dewey recommends and the challenge it poses to his epistemology. As I see it, the disagreement between Dewey and Russell about knowledge turns on deeper disagreements about the way to settle philosophical questions and these deeper disagreements are not “scientific” in nature—at least, not in the sense that either Dewey or Russell uses this term
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".