MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101802699 · doi:10.1177/0048393120967890

Popper and Kuhn: A Different Retrospect

2020· article· en· W3101802699 on OpenAlexaff
Jagdish Hattiangadi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophy of the Social Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy and History of Science
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyHumanityNormal scienceEnlightenmentKarl poppersortPhilosophyPhilosophy of scienceValue (mathematics)SociologyMathematicsTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn were friends of science because they shared some values—the value of science for humanity, especially. My thesis is that their different accounts of science could not save it from its belittlers. They failed in their defense of science unknowingly, because of what they did not do. They did not defend an Enlightenment opinion that happens to be true—namely, that a new theory of induction of the seventeenth century can be applied successfully to gain knowledge. They opposed the opinion that the “experimental philosophy” of the Royal Society in London can sometimes produce affirmative knowledge of fundamental principles, even if that sort of event is rare and hard to pull off.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.137 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophy of the Social SciencesSame topicPhilosophy and History of ScienceFrench-language works237,207