Bibliographic record
Abstract
the look back at neo-Kantian epistemology and Carnap's own work in the 1920s leading to Der logische Aufbau der Welt has served to highlight important themes that we shall examine in this chapter in relation to the 1928 book itself. First, the point of view of the epistemological project of the Aufbau is in some respects closer to, for example, Ernst Cassirer's general epistemology in Substance and Function than to Carnap's own conventionalist methodology of science. Three aspects of the Aufbau are particularly noteworthy in this regard: First, the stress on the epistemological centrality of objectivity is more pronounced than it was in Carnap's methodological work; second, the role of logic is much greater here than it had been previously in Carnap's work; third, simply as a general epistemology, the Aufbau has the broad scope of Cassirer's logic of objective knowledge, rather than the more narrow scope of Carnap's work on physics. These connections, of course, give rise ultimately to great divergences between the project of the Aufbau and Cassirer's logical idealism. The principal reason for this is that Carnap's formal logic allows him to present a technical project that Cassirer had never attempted. This technical project no longer allows the expression of Carnap's earlier rejection of strict empiricism. But this does not mean that he now endorses strict empiricism; it means, rather, that he can no longer distinguish the genuinely epistemological aspects of the project of empiricism from the epistemological aspects of neo-Kantianism.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".