File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Philosophical expertise

TitlePhilosophical expertise
Authors
Issue Date2014
Citation
Philosophy Compass, 2014, v. 9, n. 9, p. 631-641 How to Cite?
Abstract© 2014 The Author(s). © 2014 Philosophy Compass © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Recent work in experimental philosophy has indicated that intuitions may be subject to several forms of bias, thereby casting doubt on the viability of intuition as an evidential source in philosophy. A common reply to these findings is the 'expertise defense' - The claim that although biases may be found in the intuitions of non-philosophers, persons with expertise in philosophy will be resistant to these biases. Much debate over the expertise defense has centered over the question of the burden of proof; must defenders of expertise provide empirical evidence of its existence, or should we grant the existence of philosophical expertise as a 'default' assumption? Defenders have frequently appealed to analogy with other fields; since expertise clearly exists in, e.g., the sciences, we are entitled to assume its existence in philosophy. Recently, however, experimentalists have begun to provide empirical evidence that biases in intuition extend even to philosophers. Though these findings don't yet suffice to defeat the default assumption of expertise the analogy argumentmotivates, they do force any proponent of the analogy argument to provide more specific and empirically informed proposals for the possible nature of philosophical expertise.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/244043

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNado, Jennifer-
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-31T08:55:53Z-
dc.date.available2017-08-31T08:55:53Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationPhilosophy Compass, 2014, v. 9, n. 9, p. 631-641-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/244043-
dc.description.abstract© 2014 The Author(s). © 2014 Philosophy Compass © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Recent work in experimental philosophy has indicated that intuitions may be subject to several forms of bias, thereby casting doubt on the viability of intuition as an evidential source in philosophy. A common reply to these findings is the 'expertise defense' - The claim that although biases may be found in the intuitions of non-philosophers, persons with expertise in philosophy will be resistant to these biases. Much debate over the expertise defense has centered over the question of the burden of proof; must defenders of expertise provide empirical evidence of its existence, or should we grant the existence of philosophical expertise as a 'default' assumption? Defenders have frequently appealed to analogy with other fields; since expertise clearly exists in, e.g., the sciences, we are entitled to assume its existence in philosophy. Recently, however, experimentalists have begun to provide empirical evidence that biases in intuition extend even to philosophers. Though these findings don't yet suffice to defeat the default assumption of expertise the analogy argumentmotivates, they do force any proponent of the analogy argument to provide more specific and empirically informed proposals for the possible nature of philosophical expertise.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofPhilosophy Compass-
dc.titlePhilosophical expertise-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/phc3.12154-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84929167281-
dc.identifier.volume9-
dc.identifier.issue9-
dc.identifier.spage631-
dc.identifier.epage641-
dc.identifier.eissn1747-9991-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats