Аристотелічний неотомізм в ХХ ст.: Шарль де Конінк та диференціація наук про природу
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is dedicated to the ideas of aristotelian neothomism representative Charles De Koninck, who was well-known philosopher and theoretician of science in neothomostic philosophical circles but ideas of who are still not examined enough. Charles De Koninck has initiated the whole new neothomistic movement, which was represented by Laval (Quebec, Canada) and River Forest (Chicago, the USA) schools. The article is aimed to demonstrate the tight connections between medieval and modern philosophies in the frame of Thomism, as well as to clarify the ideas of De Koninck in respect to differentiation of scientific disciplines on the basis of Aquinas teaching. By means of method of comparison, it was proved, that De Koninck uses the same arguments in respect to the difference between math, metaphysics and natural science, as Aquinas used in his 13th century. Still, the main contradiction between two approaches appears to be in the fact, that in Aquinas these three disciplines are represented in hierarchy, where metaphysics is a supreme, and still they are separated. At the same time, De Koninck neglects metaphysics as the less dependable knowledge, but uses physics instead. The article clarifies the approach of De Koninck regarding the notion abstraction of matter which appears to be the most significant reason of understanding both: unity and separation of sciences.The main purpose of De Koninck was to return philosophy (philosophy of nature in particular) into the science and to prove that no real knowledge can be possible only through experiments and contingent data of material world collection. This approach remained unchanged for the whole further aristotelian neothomism, as well as an idea that natural sciences are superior to metaphysics, specifically in order of obtaining knowledge. De Koninck’s teaching became quite influential among his student and highly beneficial to Catholic philosophy of the North America.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.010 |
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".