Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kripke argues via an interpretation of Wittgenstein that any speaker's claim to have meant something determinate by an utterance is vulnerable to a sceptical chal1enge. The rules pertaining to the meaning of one's words can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, and there can thus be no objective fact about one's past mental history that can be invoked to authoritatively determine what one meant. McDowell states that the sceptical problem dissolves if we cease to look at the meaning of words on the model of interpreting signs, and instead see meaning as emerging from the communal practice of individuals who have been trained into reacting in customary ways to linguistic signs. This allows for an anti-sceptical or "therapeutic" position according to which there is no philosophical problem with respect to one's grasping the meaning of a speaker's words. We face a potential problem, however, with respect to how linguistic signs have determinate identities. This is because a sign can only be followed if it is recognized as a sign, but it can only be recognized as a sign if there is a custom of reacting to it in regularly patterned ways. The key to avoiding this paradox and preserving a therapeutic outlook is to see the forms of our language as being intimately bound up with our form of life in a conceptual feedback loop, to the effect that we reach a point at which explanations for why our words mean what they do come to an end. We simply do what we do, and observe that "this language-game is played." This implies that the fundamental level of our language-games is normative rather than being reducible to descriptive accounts of our sub-rational interactions with the world. Moreover, experience of ''the world" emerges only for one who has been initiated into a language. Hence, what we say is directly constrained by the way things are in the world, and common-sense objectivity can be comfortably accepted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".