File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Experimental Philosophy 2.0

TitleExperimental Philosophy 2.0
Authors
Keywordsmethodology
centrality
experimental philosophy
intuition
metaphilosophy
Issue Date2016
Citation
Thought, 2016, v. 5, n. 3, p. 159-168 How to Cite?
Abstract© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc and the Northern Institute of Philosophy I recommend three revisions to experimental philosophy's ‘self-image’ which I suggest will enable experimentalist critics of intuition to evade several important objections to the 'negative' strand of the experimental philosophy research project. First, experimentalists should avoid broad criticisms of ‘intuition’ as a whole, instead drawing a variety of conclusions about a variety of much narrower categories of mental state. Second, experimentalists should state said conclusions in terms of epistemic norms particular to philosophical inquiry, rather than attempting to, for example, deny that intuitions produce justified belief. Third, experimentalists should acknowledge the limitations of the ‘method of cases’ model of philosophical inquiry, and expand their experimental work accordingly.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/244059
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNado, Jennifer-
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-31T08:55:56Z-
dc.date.available2017-08-31T08:55:56Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationThought, 2016, v. 5, n. 3, p. 159-168-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/244059-
dc.description.abstract© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc and the Northern Institute of Philosophy I recommend three revisions to experimental philosophy's ‘self-image’ which I suggest will enable experimentalist critics of intuition to evade several important objections to the 'negative' strand of the experimental philosophy research project. First, experimentalists should avoid broad criticisms of ‘intuition’ as a whole, instead drawing a variety of conclusions about a variety of much narrower categories of mental state. Second, experimentalists should state said conclusions in terms of epistemic norms particular to philosophical inquiry, rather than attempting to, for example, deny that intuitions produce justified belief. Third, experimentalists should acknowledge the limitations of the ‘method of cases’ model of philosophical inquiry, and expand their experimental work accordingly.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofThought-
dc.subjectmethodology-
dc.subjectcentrality-
dc.subjectexperimental philosophy-
dc.subjectintuition-
dc.subjectmetaphilosophy-
dc.titleExperimental Philosophy 2.0-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/tht3.206-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84994644503-
dc.identifier.volume5-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage159-
dc.identifier.epage168-
dc.identifier.eissn2161-2234-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000388421400001-
dc.identifier.issnl2161-2234-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats