Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the central paradox of our time, namely, the triumphs of reason as reflected by the advances in scientific disciplines versus the seemingly inexorable increase in unreason as seen in the growth of authoritarianism and the rejection of science. The roots of this contradiction lie in a circularity in the scientific method itself, which becomes especially prominent in the project of reifying human consciousness. The crux of the problem lies in a misunderstanding of scientific rationality. I shall take another look at what is meant by the “rational process,” differentiate it from formal logic, and emphasize its key dimensions of intuition and insight. Creativity is the essential aspect of the rational process. In our discussion we will argue that creativity, seen as reframing or paradigm change, is fundamentally non-algorithmic. Indeed it often finds productive uses for non-logical factors such as contradiction and ambiguity. Rationality, like science and mathematics, cannot be separated from its intrinsic connection to the human mind. Much of the damage that follows from technological advances stems from reifying human capacities and then imagining that they stand alone, independent of the human capacities that gave birth to them. Keeping human beings at the heart of scientific and technological developments will allow us to reap the benefits of these advancements and avoid the enormous downside that current social and political trends show us may be coming.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".