Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract A recent discussion published in the blog of the American Philosophical Association on July 30, 2021, concludes with these words: Relativism is not just some bad idea, but the mother lode of bad ideas. It’s about time we stamp it out.1 This is a vivid expression of the widespread notion that identifies relativism with the denial that there is anything that it is determinately objectively correct to think about any subject matter whatever, that truth is invariably a function of non-compulsory attitudes of the believer. Maybe that idea indeed deserves no better fate than a “stamping out.” (Though good luck with that project!) In any case, I need to emphasize straight away such an immoderate anti-objectivism is not the focus of the chapters in this book, which centres on the much more nuanced, selective, and technically sophisticated versions of relativism about truth—alethic relativism—that, variously developed in contemporary treatments by authors such as Max Kölbel, John MacFarlane, and Mark Richard, have generated an astonishing amount of to-ing and fro-ing in the journals over the last quarter of a century. The seas of this modern debate having now subsided a little, it seemed good to put together this collection of some of my own attempts to contribute to the discussion.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.041 |
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".