Bibliographic record
Abstract
It may seem odd that Rudolf Carnap chose to include in his philosophy of science textbook a whole chapter on the problem of free will and determinism. The problem, or better a tangle of related problems, had exercised metaphysicians and ethicists for thousands of years. And by his own account Carnap engaged in neither metaphysics nor ethics and wanted to leave traditional philosophy behind him. So, on the face of it, the chapter presents us with a puzzle about Carnap as well as about free will and determinism. Rather than a full treatment of the traditional issues, the chapter was a response to a then recent paper by Hans Reichenbach that argued that the deterministic laws of classical physics preclude genuine choice as well as any meaningful freedom. Reichenbach goes on to argue that if, however, the fundamental laws are statistical as in quantum mechanics, both choice and freedom are restored. Carnap rejects both of Reichenbach’s conclusions and in the process addresses questions about how we are to understand laws of nature and causation as well as freedom and choice. This chapter examines and assesses Carnap’s arguments and asks whether they amount to a deviation from his anti-metaphysical stance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".