Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 37–50, 1971 Analysis and Anomalies in Philosophy of Education Jonas F. Soltis In this article, based on a conference paper presented in 1970 at the University of Toronto Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Jonas Soltis examines philosophy of education, and in particular its turn to conceptual analysis, from a Kuhnian perspective. Historically, Soltis considers as a major anomaly in the field a rupture, which took place between philosophers of education focused on discerning the best aims and methods of education and those, such as R. S. (Richard) Peters, who advocated an analytic approach precluding these sorts of questions with others, such as whether education should have an aim. As Soltis recounts, this so-called overthrow of the once-dominant inquiry-based paradigm was a source of crisis in the 1950s and 1960s, as seen in the bitter contestation over the establishment of a special interest group for analysis at the United States Philosophy of Education Society. Over time, analysis became “normal,” less vulnerable to critique and demands for justification, through a gradual paradigm shift. Next, Soltis considers what might come after analytic philosophy. As he notes, the paradigm faces internal and external challenges. In terms of the former, Soltis notes that analytic schema seem to have a static quality, which disregards in noteworthy ways the dynamic aspects of human learning and experience. Regarding the latter, he notes that questions relating to values and important social issues problems are in some respects resistant to an analytic treatment. This paper provides an interesting snapshot into historical thinking about philosophy of education and the role of analysis within it in the 1970s. As such it builds foundation for later and ongoing examinations of the analytic tradition within the field.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".