Ética y filosofía de la psicología
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo se enmarca en el contexto del actual debate entre los representantes de las disciplinas de la filosofía de la mente y las ciencias cognitivas, por un lado, y los fenomenólogos, por el otro, en torno al estatuto de la consciencia y la naturaleza de la acción. A partir de la recuperación de la obra crítica del filósofo canadiense Charles Taylor, quien en The Explanation of Behaviour (1964) se enfrentó a los presupuestos del conductismo psicológico, cuyos presupuestos modificados aún están presentes en buena medida en las doctrinas cognitivistas, se ofrecen argumentos (1) contra la pretensión reduccionista de explicar lo humano a partir de lo no humano, sin por ello minimizar la importancia de las investigaciones mecanicistas, pero atentos al carácter ineludiblemente teleológico de la acción; y (2) contra el olvido insistente en lo que respecta al estatuto de los animales no humanos y el reconocimiento de la necesidad de una demarcación más fluida entre la existencia humana, animal no humana e inanimada. --- English version: This article is framed within the current debate between representatives of the disciplines of philosophy of mind and cognitive sciences, on the one hand, and phenomenologists, on the other, regarding the status of consciousness and the nature of action. Drawing on the critical work of the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, who in The Explanation of Behaviour (1964) challenged the assumptions of psychological behaviorism—assumptions that, in modified form, still largely persist in cognitivist doctrines—this article offers arguments: (1) against the reductionist claim to explain the human solely in terms of the non-human, without thereby minimizing the importance of mechanistic research, while remaining attentive to the inescapably teleological character of action; and (2) against the persistent neglect regarding the status of non-human animals, and in favor of recognizing the need for a more fluid demarcation between human, non-human animal, and inanimate existence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.031 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".