Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proponents of Scottish common-sense philosophy, especially Thomas Reid, James Oswald, and James Beattie, had a substantial influence on late enlightenment German philosophy.In this illuminating study Manfred Kuehn explores the nature and extent of that influence.He finds that the work of these philosophers was widely discussed in German philosophical journals and translated into German soon after its publication in Britain.Important German philosophers such as Mendelssohn, Lossius, Feder, Hamann, and Jacobi, representing the full range of philosophical positions, read the Scots and found valuable philosophical insights in their thought.Most important, suggests Kuehn, was the perception of Scottish common-sense philosophers as opposing Hume's scepticism while complementing his positive teaching.Their views gave considerable impetus to those developments in German thought that ultimately led to Kant's critical philosophy.In fact Kant, whose devastating criticism of the Scottish common-sense philosophers is often cited, learned much from the Scots as his "exposition of Hume's problem in its widest extent"-the Critique of Pure Reason-reveals.Kuehn's analysis of the Scottish influence provides a new perspective on the German enlightenment and Kant's role within it, revealing the importance of problems of idealism versus realism and of philosophical justification versus mere descriptive metaphysics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.872 | 0.780 |
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".