Pyrrhonian Scepticism in Thomas Elyot's<i>Defence of Good Women</i>(1540)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article discusses the first known mention of Pyrrhonian Scepticism in the English language, which occurs in Thomas Elyot’s 1540 Defence of Good Women. The article inquires into the sources of Elyot’s knowledge of Pyrrhonism and into his motivations for mentioning Pyrrhonists in a text on the social and political status of women. I conclude that, on the balance of evidence, the most likely source of Elyot’s ideas on Pyrrhonism is Galen’s De Temperamentis. Furthermore, I argue that the rejection of a straw man version of Pyrrhonism serves as a tool of authorial positioning for Elyot, and in particular as a means of reassuring his reader that the Defence is not intended ironically. Elyot chooses Pyrrhonism as a philosophical position representing bad faith arguments, and he likely does so because of the hostile treatment of Pyrrhonism in Galen’s works, and especially in De Temperamentis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".