Entre fidélité à l’Antiquité et quête de modernité : l’impossible scepticisme des Lumières
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrairement à la présentation encore prégnante d’un siècle des Lumières marqué par le culte de la Raison, cet article montre en quoi le scepticisme a été un courant essentiel au XVIIIe siècle. À cet égard, il suit l’évolution de la pensée de Richard Popkin, passée d’une remise en question de l’idée même d’un scepticisme des Lumières à la conception d’un XVIIIe français entièrement gangréné par le scepticisme, sans toutefois aller aussi loin dans ses conclusions. En effet, plutôt que de plaider en faveur de la présence d’un scepticisme radical propre au XVIIIe siècle, mieux vaut parler d’un scepticisme modéré, qui traverse d’ailleurs les frontières entre partisans et adversaires de l’esprit des Lumières. C’est ce scepticisme modéré qui est avant tout caractéristique du pyrrhonisme des Lumières, où l’on encourage chacun à penser par lui-même et à se méfier des préjugés et de toute forme de dogmatisme.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".