MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366811164 · doi:10.1353/rss.2016.0000

Analysis, Mathematics, and Logic in Russell’s Early Philosophy

2016· article· en· W4366811164 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James Levine

Bibliographic record

VenueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Science, and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdealismContext (archaeology)Philosophy of mathematicsPhilosophy of scienceContradictionPeano axiomsAnalytic philosophyClassicsPhilosophyEpistemologyMathematicsContemporary philosophyHistoryAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies n.s. 36 (winter 2016–17): 163–90 The Bertrand Russell Research Centre, McMaster U. issn 0036–01631; online 1913–8032 c:\users\arlene\documents\rj\type3602\red\rj 3602 134 red.docx 2017-01-09 4:03 PM oeviews ANALYSIS, MATHEMATICS, AND LOGIC IN RUSSELL’S EARLY PHILOSOPHY James Levine Philosophy / Trinity College Dublin 2, Ireland jlevine@tcd.ie Jolen Galaugher. Foreword by Michael Beaney. Russell’s Philosophy of Logical Analysis: 1897–1905. (History of Analytic Philosophy series.) Basingstoke and NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Pp. xii, 218. isbn 13: 978-1-137-302069 . £60; us$110 (hb). n this book Jolen Galaugher discusses a number of key turning-points in Russell’s early philosophy: his break from Idealism in 1898–99; his acceptance of logicism in the period following the International Congress of Philosophy in Paris in August 1900 at which he was impressed by Peano and his students; and his arrival at his theory of descriptions in 1905 in the context of his attempts to grapple with various versions of what Russell called “the Contradiction”. Her overall purpose is to examine the interplay between the view of the analysis of propositions that Russell accepts following his break with Idealism and his developing views within the philosophy of mathematics. The main merits of the book are the way in which it highlights unresolved issues in our understanding of Russell’s early development and brings to bear relevant evidence in attempting to address those issues. However, as Galaugher acknowledges, the book’s “arguments are complicated in places” (p. 2), and it is not an easy read. Like some other books in this series, it appears to be based on a recently completed phd dissertation, and, like some dissertations, it combines a serious engagement with recent scholarship with a manner of presentation that presumes a shared understanding with the reader of a number of central issues and positions, and so does not clearly articulate and defend her understanding of those issues and positions to the uninitiated or sceptical reader. Hence, while the book will be useful to scholars already familiar with the sorts of issues it addresses, it would be hard to recommend it to someone coming to this material for the first time. The book consists of five chapters. In the first, Galaugher outlines some f= 164 Reviews c:\users\arlene\documents\rj\type3602\red\rj 3602 134 red.docx 2017-01-09 4:03 PM central elements of Russell’s position during his Idealist period and some of the steps involved in his dismantling that position. In the second, she argues more specifically, that in rejecting Idealism, Russell was not, as it is sometimes presented, simply following G. E. Moore—that his engagement with Leibniz’s views led Russell to go beyond Moore in certain ways and to adopt his characteristic view that relations are “external”. In the third, she discusses aspects of Russell’s logicism and its development in the period following the Paris Congress. In the fourth, she focuses on Russell’s logicist definition of the cardinal number and the notion of “class” that underpins it, arguing that in the face of the Contradiction, and his changing view of class and propositional function, it becomes questionable whether Russell and Frege should be said to endorse the same definition of cardinal number. In the fifth, she examines aspects of Russell’s coming to reject the theory of denoting concepts in favour of the theory he presents in “On Denoting”, arguing that by doing so Russell reaffirms his commitment to his post-Idealist view of a “decompositional” view of analysis as opposed to Frege’s function/argument style of analysis. Each of the aspects of Russell’s views that Galaugher examines concerns issues on which Russell often changed his mind, sometimes within a quite short period of time. While much of the material relevant to understanding these changes of mind has now been published in the Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Russell scholars have not fully assimilated it. Galaugher not only calls attention to a number of features of Russell’s early development that are not yet fully understood...

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.204 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell StudiesSame topicPhilosophy, Science, and HistoryFrench-language works237,207