Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article by F. C. S. Schiller to which Russell wrote the following untitled draft rejoinder was “Choice”, published in The Hibbert Journal 7 (July 1909): 802–12. Schiller’s article was in reply to Russell’s “Determinism and Morals”, ibid. 7 (Oct. 1908): 113–21 (B&R C08.10). This article was, or just possibly was yet to become, section IV of “The Elements of Ethics”, reprinted in Philosophical Essays (1910) and again in Paper 19 of Papers 6. Section IV now reappears as 34 in Papers 5. Schiller appended his piece to the third edition of his Riddles of the Sphinx (Swan Sonnenschein, 1910), pp. 451–62. This book, unmarked, is in Russell’s library at McMaster. Russell drafted a rejoinder headed “Schiller Hibbert J. Apr. ’09”, with a premature issue date. The rejoinder did not appear in the Hibbert, although a reply by G. T. Sadler did (“Choice”, 8 [Oct. 1909]: 193–4). We do not know that Russell did not submit a rejoinder. He seems not to have altered the text of section IV in response to Schiller’s article. The text below follows the manuscript (ra1 220.011230). In 1967 I found this at Plas Penrhyn in Schiller’s Studies in Humanism (1907), which Russell had reviewed anonymously (B&R C07.02). Also in the book, which has many verbal marginalia and indeed a chapter (XVIII) on determinism, were four leaves of notes on the book. He and Schiller had several controversies in the Papers 5 period. Neither Schiller’s reply nor the draft rejoinder (and the notes and most marginalia) are used in Papers 5 to complete the story. Most of the quoted passages below, sometimes truncated or transformed, are in Schiller’s piece. E.g., Schiller complained that “logical implications” of the doctrine of determinism had not been fully explored (p. 455). Russell changed that to “moral implications”. He repeated his moral point in the “Determinism” chapter of Religion and Science (1935).—K.B.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".