Conceptual Confusion in R.G. Collingwood’s Theory of the “Criterion of Historical Truth”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the section of The Idea of History entitled “Epilegomena 2: The Historical Imagination,” R.G. Collingwood propounds his theory of the criterion of historical truth. All theory entails ontological commitment to those principles and concepts on which its truth relies. In Collingwood’s case, these include the historical or a priori imagination, the concept of necessity, the idea of the past as an innate idea, a coherence theory of truth in the project “to construct a picture of things as they really were and of events as they really happened,” and an elastic notion of evidence, according to which the present, as sequel to the past, serves as evidence for the past. Each of these commitments succumbs to challenges to its validity, plausibility, and applicability. As a result, the very notion of a criterion of historical truth, as Collingwood formulates it, collapses. The a priori imagination lacks any point of epistemological purchase and becomes a faculty with nothing to address since, in applying this concept, Collingwood confuses the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge as well as that between a priori and inferential reasoning, converts historical contingency into necessity, and misconstrues the notion of synthesis or the combination of disparate units into a systematic whole. Moreover, through his linking of evidence with temporal becoming, truth loses its stable meaning as perspective on evidence changes with each new moment, as does the evidence itself.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".