Thought Experiments

Author: Cristhian Mauricio Beltrán Calderón: Date: November 2025, Zenodo DOI (English version): 10.5281/zenodo.17461342, Zenodo DOI (Spanish version): 10.5281/zenodo.17451757. This article establishes the theoretical-methodological foundations for the systematic integration of the temporal variable operationalized as speed into the analytical framework of geopolitics. Starting from the identification of limitations in traditional approaches focused exclusively on space, we develop the theodromic approach (from the Greek theōria, 'contemplation', and dromos, 'race') as a necessary synthesis that captures the essence of an analysis that is both (...) reflective and dynamic. This framework critically integrates dromology (Virilio, 1977), social acceleration (Rosa, 2013), and complex systems theory (Cederman, 1997; Urry, 2005) to analyze what we define as pluridimensional Temporal Sovereignty: the capacity of any actor (state, non-state, peripheral, or central) to exercise autonomy over its internal temporal dimensions, whether through competitive acceleration, defensive deceleration, or alternative synchronization within a context of asymmetric global acceleration. The proposed methodology combines quantitative techniques (time series analysis, network modeling, DEA) with qualitative ones (ACD, Foucauldian genealogy). The central validated hypothesis is that flowing theodromic advantage can compensate for and even temporarily overcome stock advantages in critical windows, and that defensive and resistant temporal sovereignties are viable strategies for non-hegemonic actors. Finally, it introduces novel constructs such as the EOT, differentiated ICT, Chrono-chokepoint, and CFT, establishing a prospective research agenda. (shrink)

If Social Constructionism does not prefer monistic Postmodernism over dualistic Modernism, it should include, next to living expressions and spontaneous gestures, criticism into its process model, occurring as independent confirmation and implying coordinated reflection between the knowing organism and its sensed environment.

in Architecture of the Imagination, ed. Shaun Nichols (Oxford University Press, 2006): 257-272.

…A reconstructed imaginal account of Alexander’s (the Great) historical letter to Aristotle pursuant to his (in-) famous meeting with the gymnosophist Dandimus on the paradoxes of Zeno ( presaging those of Nagarjuna ) as a means of presenting a synthesis of the stasis and dynamism implicit in the potential of a phenomenally real world beyond a rigid designation of a chain-of-being taxonomy where animal dignity resides side by side with predator-prey relations and a mind-laden ( theory ) of evolution.

My new (Experimental) PHILOSOPHY (XPhi) book for FREE download https://www.academia.edu/31973890/_Meta-Philosophy_Theorizing_about_Philosophy_CMT_CB_and_CM_as_an_e xercise_inXPhi (Meta-Philosophy) Theorizing about Philosophy (CMT, CB and CMA) as an exercise inXPhi The processes of theorizing are explored, Weick's Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Conceptual Blending Theory and Conceptual Metaphor tool are described. This Meta-Philosophy investigation of philosophy and philosophizing is an exercise in Experimental Philosophy. The Empirical Generalization or Hypothesis arrived at states that: Philosophy/izing is like or resembles the process/es of Theorizing.

This paper provides a novel defence of the philosophical use of examples drawn from literature, by comparison with thought experiments and real cases. Such fictional examples, subject to certain constraints, can play a similar role to real cases in establishing the generality of a social phenomenon. Furthermore, the distinct psychological vantage point offered by literature renders it a potent resource for elucidating intricate social dynamics. This advantage of the internal insight that fictional examples can (though do not always) possess helps (...) explain their prevalence in certain areas of philosophy, such as ethics, epistemology, and the philosophy of emotion, in which we can require a more precise characterization of a subject's mental states. While the respective advantages of fictional examples, real cases, and thought experiments clearly depend on many contextual factors, the former have an important, and arguably underappreciated, role to play in philosophical inquiry. (shrink)

According to ordinary language philosophy (OLP), philosophical problems can be solved by investigating ordinary language, often because the problems stem from its misuse. According to ideal language philosophy (ILP), on the other hand, philosophical problems exist because ordinary language is flawed and has to be improved or replaced by constructed languages that do not exhibit these flaws. OLP and ILP together make up linguistic philosophy, the view that philosophical problems are problems of language. Linguistic philosophy is opposed to what may (...) be called, for lack of a better word, ‘traditional philosophy’ (TP), the view that philosophical problems can be solved by discovering non-linguistic facts. In the following, OLP, ILP, and TP are taken to be methodologies, that is, frameworks in which to interpret and evaluate different philosophical methods (i.e., argumentative strategies). The two linguistic methodologies are discussed separately with TP as a foil, and then used to interpret the status of different philosophical methods. While each of the methods discussed here finds a plausible interpretation in each methodology, there are other arguments for and against linguistic philosophy in general, and for and against ILP and OLP in particular. As none of these arguments is decisive, I conclude with a superficial moral about peaceful co-existence. (shrink)

Neuralink could distribute artificial superintelligence to humans, thus allowing the homosapiens to synchronize the hemispheres of their brains, thereby transcending space-time, and potentially time traveling. While backwards time travel cannot change the past, due to paradoxes, the time traveler would probably share a soul with the alternate timeline self, thus providing closure for regrets, errors, injustice, etc. Plus, if one time travels with AI superintelligence, the time traveler may mend errors with greater ease. -/- Although other potential time travel methods (...) are displayed in the reference section, only the Gateway Process will be observed in this essay. The Gateway Process may allow for backwards time travel, under the rules that time travel cannot change the past, yet by attempting to change the past, new dimensions will be created, thus growing the universe. To determine if the Gateway Process allows for backwards time travel, researchers can use computer brain interface to examine the inside of a subject’s brain and mind. Plus, researchers can also check if the universe has grown after the subject has attempted to alter a past event, theoretically only creating another dimension. Soon technology may detect the exact expansion of the universe. Perhaps scientists can use space tunnels to investigate the possible creation of new dimensions from the Gateway Process backwards time traveling, attempting to alter past events. EXPERIMENT STEPS: 1)Automate the Gateway Process with Neuralink to ease suspected backwards time travel. 2)Connect the subject’s brain and mind to computer brain interface, or more specifically, magnetic resonance imaging, so the suspected time travel is recorded. 3)Build a space tunnel device to determine if the subject is creating new alternate dimensions with the suspected backwards time travel. 4)Stop, review and try again. Space tunnels may further corroborate if more dimensions have been created with the Gateway Process. Since hemisphere synchronization transcends the time-space dimension, effective enough Neuralink devices could allow someone to synchronize brain hemispheres and time travel to the past. Neuralink technology may both allow a deeper meditative state, thus backwards time travel, and computer monitoring of the backwards time travel and alternate dimension creation /universe expansion. At least presumably through scientific studies, each individual has alternate selves throughout alternate timelines thus, each individual(all alternate selves) become one in the afterlife. So backwards time traveling to correct a mistake, injustice, or error, thus creating alternate timelines, out of the past, would not change the original timeline but, would add a deeper satisfaction for the time traveler by sharing a soul with the alternative timeline self. While correcting the error, injustice, or mistake, the time traveler and alternative timeline self may share an individual consciousness. More concretely, quantum entanglement may illustrate how an individual’s selves, across different alternate timelines, share a deeper fundamental self, like a soul. I hereby invite experts in AI, quantum mechanics, and neuroscience to collaborate in adding technical rigor to this preprint. (shrink)

In this paper, I challenge the prevailing view—in both medieval Arabic philosophy and contemporary analytic philosophy—that treats intuition as a propositional attitude. Instead, I advocate for a conception of atomic intuition—a non-propositional, object-directed cognitive state characterized by immediacy and explanatory power. Unlike propositional intuition, which serves as evidence for justifying beliefs, atomic intuition emerges instantaneously as a fundamental epistemic mechanism that provides access to essential insights. Its role in epistemic thought experiments is not to justify propositions (justification-that) but rather to (...) illuminate why certain conclusions naturally follow in specific epistemic contexts (justification-why). (shrink)

According to the mischaracterization objection developed by Max Deutsch and Herman Cappelen, philosophers do not appeal to intuitions as evidence for their judgments about thought experiment cases, but rather argue for their case judgments. Although Deutsch and Cappelen present numerous case studies in support of this claim, the reception of the mischaracterization objection has been surprisingly negative so far. In this paper, I will first clarify and elaborate the mischaracterization objection, explain its metaphilosophical significance, and then argue that all extant (...) replies to it fail. The mischaracterization objection is therefore much stronger than it is widely assumed to be, with potentially far-reaching metaphilosophical consequences for the restrictionist challenge from experimental philosophy and the philosophical import of intuitions about hypothetical cases. (shrink)

This paper argues that immersive participation is an epistemic strategy that shapes how thought experiments ("TEs") are interpreted and contested within research communities. Building on Waltonian fictionalist approaches, I argue that their focus on work worlds and fictional truths leaves the productive role of immersion in TEs underexplored. By reinterpreting Hacking's metaphor of performing a TE as acting a part in a play, I highlight three interrelated features of TEs' participatory dimension: (i) their dual nature as both scripts and performances, (...) (ii) the alternation between onlooker and participant stances, and (iii) the public status of immersion. I illustrate this proposal through Thomson's Dying Violinist and Einstein's Chasing the Light, showing how immersive features can guide ethical judgement and expose theoretical tensions. Finally, I argue that immersion is itself open to dialectical contestation: critics can redirect or dampen a TE's immersive features in order to reshape its argumentative force. On this view, the epistemic value of immersive participation lies not in the accuracy of the experience it recreates, but in its capacity to open a shared space of contestation in which the strengths and limitations of TEs can be collectively tested. (shrink)

Lately, many have pointed out or proposed ways that arguments may be narrative and narratives may be argumentative. This chapter discusses the six basic possibilities: (1) argument in nonfictional or (2) fictional narrative; (3) nonfictional or (4) fictional narrative in argument; (5) argument by nonfictional or (6) fictional narrative. Possibilities 1-4 indicate a proper subset relation between the argument and narrative, whereas 5 and 6 indicate complete overlap. These possibilities cover such kinds of discourse as anecdotes, thought experiments, fables, and (...) novels. Not all of the possibilities are of equal interest. Possibility 6 is the most intriguing if not suspicious—how can fiction argue for the truth of something?—and so, is accorded the most space. (shrink)

Intuition is a psychological state that often accompanies some propositions, particularly when engaging in thought experiments. I argue that these intuitive states can sometimes serve as evidence for the propositions they accompany. To support this claim, I present a novel argument for the evidentiary role of intuition: Some philosophical arguments rely solely on intuition for at least one of their premises. Some conclusions from such arguments are justified. If the conclusion of an argument is (i) justified and; (ii) justified by (...) its premises, then premises of that argument are justified. Therefore, all premises of such arguments are justified. If all premises of such arguments are justified, then that implies that some premises of such arguments are justified only by intuition. Therefore, intuitions can justify. One virtue of this argument is that it does not require establishing the nature of intuition before demonstrating that it can be justificatory. (shrink)

This is a textbook/popular introduction to the metaphysics of identity. It is centred around 12 science fiction stories, each of which explores some facet of the personal identity debate; cases like amnesia, teleportation, time travel, brain fission and mental fusion. Accompanying each story is a commentary that summarises the philosophical arguments. While the arguments are presented in a balanced way, the author ends up supporting a broadly animalist account, according to which we are essentially autonomous animals. This means that we (...) persist so long as we maintain our animal bodies and its autonomous life-preservation distinct from other animals. We stop persisting if we are bodily fused with other animals, or if we lose our basic animal characteristics (for instance, if our bodies are gradually replaced by machine parts). Another point that the book makes is that thought experiments are essential for reasoning about the metaphysics of identity. Yet philosophers have often used thought experiments in an irresponsible way. For instance, philosophers such as Derek Parfit make appeals to brain transplants without thinking through their practical implications in any realistic detail. A collection of science fiction stories on these scenarios is thus important for getting us to think more carefully about these cases. Finally, the book has appendices which list science fiction stories and films relevant to personal identity, and a teacher's guide for a class centred around the metaphysics of identity. The attached file is a preprint version containing the contents list and introduction only. (shrink)

According to a popular theory in philosophical methodology, there is a widespread misconception among philosophers as to their own methods. This misconception is that philosophers use intuitions as evidence. This is a fascinating theory for various reasons. Some of those reasons pertain to what the theory predicts about what philosophers are teaching their students, and whether the theory puts us on the pathway to pedagogical reform. The current paper doesn’t answer those questions but uses them to demonstrate some hitherto unrecognised (...) fascinating aspects of the idea that there is a widespread misconception among philosophers as to their methods. (shrink)

The author clarifies nature of the property of merorganic continuity and demonstrates its applicability not only to the question of survival and personal identity, but also to the question of demarcation of reconstruction and restoration. The author also responds to the remarks and criticisms of Roman Kochnev and Konstantin Morozov related to the publication of his previous article.

According to Bokulich and Frappier, understanding thought experiments as Waltonian props for the imagination cannot explain their evolution, since their content is fixed by prescriptions to imagine. That is, fictional truths constrain researchers’ imagination not to imagine otherwise. I suggest that the normative dimension of imagination is more flexible than Walton claims, especially in the context of TEs. Feyerabend’s philosophy shows this by highlighting the fruitful role of violating prescriptions to imagine. I focus on the power of subjective imaginings to (...) develop TEs-based debates. Readers of TEs are receptive researchers who rely on an initial fictional narrative to challenge the epistemic stance for which a TE was designed. This dialectical process can be framed through Waltonian notions of “work world” and “game worlds”: the intersubjective set of fictional truths provided by a prop and the subjective imaginings of participants in the game of make-believe. According to Walton, proper players create their game worlds by building on the work world and trying to minimize mismatches. However, Feyerabend’s philosophy emphasizes the importance of divergent game worlds. By violating fiction-based constraints, researchers engaged in a TE give their creative game worlds such a prominent role that they eventually evolve the work world itself. (shrink)

Hilary Kornblith is one of the world’s leading epistemologists, a champion of an innovative philosophical research program that is at once traditional and revisionary. In viewing the study of knowledge as inseparable from the empirical study of the mind, Kornblith aligns himself closely with the approach of the traditional empiricists of the 17th and 18th centuries. Yet in taking contemporary empirical work seriously, Kornblith has developed views and arguments that shift the epistemological focus away from what is available first-personally _within_ (...) the mind towards what is revealed third-personally _of_ the mind instead. Indeed, anyone looking seriously at the history of 20th century epistemology can draw a straight line from W.V.O. Quine through Alvin Goldman to Hilary Kornblith – all three, in their ways, champions of a science-centered epistemology. On the innovative leading edge of that tradition, however, Kornblith has developed a systematic rejection of the traditional philosophical method of conceptual analysis (_pace_ Goldman) while establishing a thoroughly empirical and yet unambiguously philosophical approach to the study of knowledge (_pace_ Quine). As such, Kornblith’s work is required reading for anyone interested in the structure and nature of knowledge, the structure and grounds of justification, the sources of epistemic normativity, the history and the prospects for a naturalized epistemology, the legitimacy of intuition-dependent conceptual analysis as a philosophical method, and the significance and reliability of reflection and reasoning. This volume collects 16 original essays that advance the state of play by engaging critically and substantively with Kornblith’s views on these and other topics, along with an essay by Kornblith himself replying to his critics. (shrink)

In his Lectura Secunda (d. 1, q. 6, §1), Adam Wodeham depicts a scenario in which God's absolute power is uncommonly used to prove the inseparability of enjoyment (fruitio) and pleasure (delectatio) in the beatific vision. After putting Wodeham's argument into its historical context, I argue that it can be considered an example of a thought experiment. If confirmed, this acknowledgment can lead to a major clarification in the current debate about Medieval thought experiments.

Guy Crain alleges three shortcomings of the trolley method of moral philosophy: (1) trolley cases fail to model real-world decision-making; (2) trolley cases tend to foreground high-stakes decisions, which makes them a poor tool for analyzing the ethical decisions most people routinely face; and (3) trolley cases tend to present their agents as anonymous blanks, which invites readers to fill in the blanks in problematic ways. In reply, we argue that Crain mischaracterizes the trolley method by neglecting a key feature (...) of trolley cases: they have the goal of shaping specific audience beliefs in specific ways. The shortcomings Crain alleges are not shortcomings of trolley cases deployed in standard belief-shaping ways. (shrink)

A key question in contemporary metaphilosophy of thought experiments is the “wheat from chaff” problem: How can we separate the good and trustworthy thought experiments from the untrustworthy ones? This article examines this problem by viewing thought experimentation as a form of mental simulation. It argues that we should approach the limitations of thought experiments in light of the general shortcomings of our capacity to run mental simulations. Furthermore, the article proposes an answer to the wheat from chaff problem by (...) presenting three danger signals for untrustworthy thought experiments. These are (1) high counterfactuality of the imagined scenario, (2) complexity of the imagined scenario, and (3) a large psychological distance to the imagined scenario. (shrink)

Logical rationalism asserts that we can acquire immediate, non-inferential justification for beliefs in basic logical principles. The intuitions that arise when we consider particular cases of validity can offer justification for our foundational logical beliefs about rules of inference. I motivate rationalism through an argument from the indispensability of intuitions. This argument shows that rationalism is the theory best equipped to solve the problem of background logic. This is the challenge of explaining how we gain justified beliefs in rules of (...) inference without using those rules in a viciously circular way to arrive at the beliefs. As rationalism is the best epistemology which solves this important challenge, it is our best account of logical knowledge. In addition, I argue that a second major motivation for logical rationalism arises from work on logical practice. Recently, it has been claimed that we should attend to the practices of logicians when selecting an epistemology of logic. I argue that these considerations from logical practice also favour the adoption of logical rationalism. (shrink)

Thought experiments are fictional narratives that widen our cognitive horizons both in the sciences and in philosophy. In the present paper we argue that they can perform this function by bringing one’s perspective into view. Despite being traditionally conceived as devices that transmit true propositions to their readers, thought experiments are also particularly apt to express a specific theoretical perspective through the use of imagination. We suggest that this is a significant epistemic feature that is often overlooked in the debate. (...) After presenting our analysis of thought experiments (Section 2) and of the role that imagination plays in them (Section 3), we revisit Galileo Galilei’s use of imaginary cases in light of our account (Section 4). We show that the main aims of Galileo’s thought experiments are to highlight how different perspectives endorsed by fictional characters affect imagination and to invite readers to actively engage in perspectives that are different from their own. This results in a clash of perspectives which plays a crucial epistemic role (Section 5). Readers of thought experiments do not passively absorb information, but critically assess the other’s perspective. In the final part of the paper, we individuate different ways in which readers can react to thought experiments. (shrink)

Thought experiments figure prominently in contemporary epistemology. Beyond that humdrum observation, controversy abounds. The aim of this paper is to make progress on two fronts. On the descriptive front, the aim is to illuminate what the practice of using thought experiments involves. On the normative front, the aim is to illuminate what the practice of using thought experiments should involve. Thought experiments result in judgments that are passed on to further philosophical reasoning. What are these judgments? What is the point (...) of making them? What basis do we have for making them? A conception of thought experiments includes answers to these three questions. My thesis is that epistemologists should use thought experiments in accordance with a conception of them organized around the idea of explanation. My case for endorsing the thesis rests on the fruitfulness of the interventions in current debates about the content, point, and basis of thought experiment judgments that it suggests. (shrink)

The Challenge from Cognitive Diversity (CCD) states that demography-specific intuitions are unsuited to play evidential roles in philosophy. The CCD attracted much attention in recent years, in great part due to the launch of an international research effort to test for demographic variation in philosophical intuitions. In the wake of these international studies the CCD may prove revolutionary. For, if these studies uncover demographic differences in intuitions, then in line with the CCD there would be a good reason to challenge (...) philosophical views that rely on those intuitions for evidential support. I argue that philosophical views that rely on demography-specific intuitions for evidential support need not be threatened by such findings. I first provide a detailed analysis of the epistemological principles driving the CCD and distinguish three formulations of this challenge. I then show that there are good reasons to reject all such formulations of the CCD. (shrink)

The philosophical literatures on models and thought experiments have been developing exponentially, and independently, for decades. This independence is surprising, given how similar models and thought experiments are. They each have “lives of their own,” they sit between theory and experience, they are important for both pedagogy and cutting-edge science, they galvanize conceptual changes and paradigm shifts, and they involve entertaining imaginary scenarios and working out what happens. Recently, philosophers have begun to highlight these similarities. This entry aims at taking (...) the idea further, by trying to systematically identify places where insights from one literature can be taken up in the other. Along the way, important differences will also be highlighted. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Function-first approaches illuminate phenomena by investigating their functional roles. I first describe virtues of this approach. By foregrounding normal instances of knowledge, for example, function-first theorising offers a much-needed corrective to epistemology's counterexample-driven momentum towards increasingly byzantine, marginal cases. And epistemic practices are shaped by human limitations, needs, vices, and power relations. These non-ideal, naturalistic forces of embodied sociality form the roots of function-first theorising, which creates a fecund foundation for social epistemology. Secondly, I consider an objection to function-first (...) theorising. The objection holds that function-first approaches lack adjudicatory power. That is, function-first proposals are overly compatible with diverse claims about knowledge, which encourages “just so” speculation. In response to this concern, I advocate methodological pluralism in epistemological theorising. All methods have limitations; researchers must be mindful of those limits and fruitfully combine multiple methods. I illustrate with Hannon's function-first based arguments for “epistemic pragmatism”, which denies that the meaning of “knows” is determined by truth conditions. Finally, I argue that function-first theorising motivates staunch anti-skepticism about knowledge. Practical forces cannot chisel a sharp threshold for how much evidence is required for knowledge. But thinking this supports radical skepticism about knowledge conflates fuzzy thresholds and high ones. (shrink)

The author criticizes the thought experiment about survival in a teletransporter. The weakness of the experiment lies in the implicit dualism and the uncritical premise of multiple implementations in the conditions. The assumption about the qualitative identity of bodies after teleportation through the category of mereorganic continuity is criticized.

The limitations of logic in the pursuit of a deeper understanding of the nature of reality has been encountered by philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, theologians, psychologists, and by people from any field of study, or walk of life, no matter their religious, political, or intellectual affiliation or belief. Any curious and thinking person who engages with abstract thought, the material world, the nature of the cosmos, other people, or any pursuit of the mind will inevitably run up against the limitations with (...) which reason and logic alone can explain, interact with, and understand the mysteries of the universe. Drawing on Kurt Gödel's (1906-1978) application of the 'Paradox of Undecidability' from his Incompleteness Theorems (1931), The Destruction of Logic from Within will also expand on G.W. Leibniz's (1646-1716) concept of the 'incompossible' and apply both to a spiritual understanding of the limits of logic. This volume will propose that the use of logic can be surpassed by its own definition as a finite tool of understanding. This will be done by exploring the idea that the internal breakdown of logic itself will by extension, have logically useful implications and applications as a way to seek individual spiritual growth. It will be argued that when logic reaches its point of breakdown and internal contradiction, an opportunity arises to find meaning in a greater awareness of humanity's limits of understanding. This, despite many scientific advancements and improvements to material well-being. The book is part philosophy and part theology. One of the objectives of this book to show that logic and faith are compatible and complementary, despite the prevailing and reflexive assumption often found in the Western world to the contrary. Meanwhile, the book sets course by telling the story of how spiritual freedom of conscience led to improved well-being for people who sought out new beginnings in North America. The Destruction of Logic from Within will also examine the biblical basis of freedom of conscience, and for the rationalist skeptic, it will put biblical coherence under a microscope. A supplemental glossary in the volume clarifies the way in which many terms and concepts found inside are used. Each chapter builds on the previous to present a strong argument that it is a sound and logical choice to accept the enduring Christian message of God's love. (shrink)

Thought experiments feature prominently in both scientific and philosophical methods. In this paper, I investigate two questions surrounding knowledge in the thought experiment process. First, on what implicit knowledge do thought experiments rely? Second, what provides epistemic justification for beliefs acquired through the process? I draw upon neo-Aristotelian metaphysics and Husserlian phenomenology to argue that essence is the object of implicit knowledge that anchors the imagined possibilities involved in thought experiments to the actual world, and that this essentialist knowledge enables (...) the possibility of prima facie justification being conferred by the phenomenological givenness of thought experiment scenarios. (shrink)

The article is a commentary on the work of Roman Kochnev Teletransporter and Other Troubles, which is a critical remark on the work of Alexey Kardash Teletransporter and Origami. First, the article reconstructs Kardash’s argument against survival in Parfit’s teletransporter, as well as Kochnev’s criticism. Next, the principle of mereorganic continuity proposed by Kardash is defended as a condition for the survival of the person. To answer Kochnev’s criticism, examples of stolen gametes are simulated, which demonstrate that mereorganic continuity is (...) a detector of causal relationships necessary for the survival of the person. The article concludes by addressing the problem of the implicit dualism inherent in Parfitian views on survival in teletransporter. (shrink)

Experimental ethicists investigate traditional ethical questions with non-traditional means, namely with the methods of the empirical sciences. Studies in this area have made heavy use of philosophical thought experiments such as the well-known trolley cases. Yet, the specific function of these thought experiments within experimental ethics has received little consideration. In this paper we attempt to fill this gap. We begin by describing the function of ethical thought experiments, and show that these thought experiments should not only be classified according (...) to their function but also according to their scope. On this basis we highlight several ways in which the use of thought experiments in experimental ethics can be philosophically relevant. We conclude by arguing that experimental philosophy currently only focuses on a small subcategory of ethical thought experiments and suggest a broadening of its research agenda. (shrink)

Throughout different versions of the Wissenschaftslehre J. G. Fichte uses the term ‘experiment’ in reference to his philosophical method. This paper presents an account of Fichte’s methodological understanding of experiments in philosophy and their role in the Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre (1794/95). I show that Fichte in Part One and Two of the Grundlage describes and conducts a type of philosophical experiment that draws on key elements of Kant’s conception of an “experiment of pure reason” in the Critique of Pure (...) Reason. On this account, Fichte introduces the notion of a philosophical experiment to explain how the Grundlage can establish its foundational principles by virtue of a synthetic method. Moreover, I argue that Fichte in Part Two further distinguishes between explorative and demonstrative experiments, each serving a distinctive role in proving the possibility and reality of theoretical knowledge. By way of this reading, I arrive at new conclusions concerning Fichte’s conception of the synthetic procedure to be employed in philosophy and the argumentative strategies employed in the Grundlage. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is to determine the role of intuitions in Gettier cases. Critics of the Method of Cases argue that arguments developed within this method contain a premise that is justified by its intuitiveness; they also argue that intuitions are unreliable sources of evidence. By contrast, Max Deutsch argues that this critique is unsound since intuitions do not serve as evidence for premises. In Gettier cases, an intuitive premise is justified by other arguments called G-Grounds. I propose (...) a different view on the role of intuition in Gettier cases. I introduce a distinction between concept-revision arguments and concept-application arguments. On the basis of this distinction and Craig's and Spicer's distinction between intuitions of intension and intuitions of extension, I show that (1) intuitions of extension do not serve as evidence for any G-Grounds; (2) intuitions of intension do play an evidential role for all G-Grounds, but (3) in the case of G-Grounds which are used as concept-application arguments, they are a poor source of evidence, while (4) in the case of G-Grounds used as concept-revision arguments, they could be a reliable source of evidence if they are intuitions of intension of a speaker immersed in philosophical discourse. (shrink)

In the paper I introduce and discuss the interpretative procedure; a stage of investigation in thought experiments in which it is determined which states of affairs are genuine realizations of the described story. I show how incorporating the interpretative procedure to the reconstruction of a certain kind of thought experiments, i.e., the method of cases, provides a solution to the so-called problem of deviant realizations. According to this problem it is hard to formulate the logical structure of the method of (...) cases that excludes far-fetched interpretations of a particular thought experiment's description that are inconsistent with the expected conclusion of the experiment. As I show, if we agree that the interpretative procedure precedes the act of establishing whether the thing which is at issue (e.g., knowledge) appears within a certain state of affairs, deviant realizations could be ruled out, since within interpretative procedure we establish the set of states of affairs that are compatible with the intentions of the author of the thought experiment. In the paper I provide a general explanation of how this task could be fulfilled by semantic intuitions and discuss their contextual dependence. (shrink)

The paper defends the view that that a significant part of metaphysics should be understood as conceptual engineering, and explores its epistemological advantages and metaphysical implications. It discusses the challenge raised by moderate modal skepticism, which points out the lack of reliable methods for verifying modal statements through thought experiments. As I argue, a normative stance on metaphysical methodology, understanding it as engaging in conceptual engineering project, justifies the use of this method. By adopting an approach where the method of (...) cases offers reasons for adopting specific normative constraints on concept usage, the method becomes justifiable. Consequently, it can be employed to justify the revision of conceptual schemes and, in turn, validate certain modal claims about entities falling under the scrutinized concepts. The paper explores how this approach can methodologically enrich conceptual engineering-focused perspectives in metaphysics and examines its metaphysical consequences. In particular, it demonstrates that despite the mind-dependency of the method of cases results, it still leaves room for a metaphysically realistic viewpoint. (shrink)

Much recent work on philosophical methodology has focused on whether we should accept evidence: the claim that philosophers use intuitive judgments about cases as evidence for/against philosophical theories. This paper outlines a new way of thinking about the philosophical method of appealing to cases such that evidence is true but not as it is typically understood. The idea proposed is that, when philosophers appeal to cases, they are engaged in a project of conceptual engineering and that, within that project, intuitions (...) about cases provide evidence as to the normative constraints which are relevant within that project. The paper demonstrates that this is a feasible interpretation of the way that cases are appealed to in recent journal issues, and makes the case that this would be a better way to think of what philosophers are doing when they appeal to cases. (shrink)

Düşünce deneylerinden beklenen şeylerden biri de mevcut bilgimizi test etmesi ya da bilgimizi artırmasıdır. Ancak adından da kolayca anlaşılacağı gibi, yalnızca düşüncede yürütülen böyle bir deney, örneğin bize ne şekilde yeni bir bilgi sağlayabilir? Bu zamana kadar söz konusu soruya, bilim felsefesi literatüründe, başlıca beş temel yanıt verilmiştir. Bu makalede, tüm bu yaklaşımların -Platoncu yaklaşım hariç- ortak bir varsayımını ele alacağım. Bu varsayıma göre düşünce deneylerinin tüm yönlerini açıklayabilecek kapsayıcı bir teori bulunmaktadır. Düşünce deneylerinin doğasına ilişkin bu tekçi varsayım, en (...) azından iki yönden oldukça sorunlu görünmektedir. İlk olarak, belirli bir düşünce deneyinin tek bir yaklaşımla açıklanamayan yönleri bulunmaktadır. İkincisi, şimdiye kadar önerilen yaklaşımlar tüm düşünce deneylerini açıklayamamaktadır. Bu iddiaları temellendirmek ve bahsedilen yaklaşımların eksikliklerini belirtmek için Galileo’nun ve Darwin’in öne sürdüğü düşünce deneyi örneklerini ele alacağım. Son olarak çoğulcu bir yaklaşımın düşünce deneylerinin doğasını açıklamada çok daha uygun bir çerçeve sağladığını öne süreceğim. (shrink)

What role, if any, do ‘seemings’ play in philosophy? Clarifying the relevant type of philosophical inquiry will enable us to pinpoint what epistemic contributions ‘seemings’ could make thereto. It will also reveal what turns on the question—nothing less, I propose, than the very possibility of philosophy. However, the answer I develop appeals not to seemings, but rather to intuitions conceived as a particular type of presentation—a “consciousness of seizing upon” how the world is, as Husserl put it. After distinguishing presentations (...) from seemings, I prise apart two kinds of presentational phenomenology, eventually arguing that the ‘contentful’ sort is poised to do the needed epistemic work. (shrink)

Prior research found correlations between reflection test performance and philosophical tendencies among laypeople. In two large studies (total N = 1299)—one pre-registered—many of these correlations were replicated in a sample that included both laypeople and philosophers. For example, reflection test performance predicted preferring atheism over theism and instrumental harm over harm avoidance on the trolley problem. However, most reflection-philosophy correlations were undetected when controlling for other factors such as numeracy, preferences for open-minded thinking, personality, philosophical training, age, and gender. Nonetheless, (...) some correlations between reflection and philosophical views survived this multivariate analysis and were only partially confounded with either education or self-reported reasoning preferences. Unreflective thinking still predicted believing in God whereas reflective thinking still predicted believing that (a) proper names like ‘Santa’ do not necessarily refer to entities that actually exist and (b) science does reveal the fundamental nature of the world. So some robust relationships between reflection and philosophical tendencies were detected even among philosophers, and yet there was clearly more to the link between reflection and philosophy. To this end, demographic and metaphilosophical hypotheses are considered. (shrink)

This work investigates intuitions' nature, demonstrating how philosophers can best use them in epistemology. First, the author considers several paradigmatic thought experiments in epistemology that depict the appeal to intuition. He then argues that the nature of thought experiment-generated intuitions is not best explained by an a priori Platonism. Second, the book instead develops and argues for a thin conception of epistemic intuitions. The account maintains that intuition is neither a priori nor a posteriori but multi-dimensional. It is an intentional (...) but non-propositional mental state that is also non-conceptual and non-phenomenal in nature. Moreover, this state is individuated by its progenitor, namely, the relevant thought experiment. Third, the author provides an argument for the evidential status of intuitions based on the correct account of the nature of epistemic intuition. The suggestion is the fitting-ness approach: intuition alone has no epistemic status. Rather, intuition has evidentiary value as long as it fits well with other pieces into a whole, namely, the pertinent thought experiment. Finally, the book addresses the key challenges raised by supporters of anti-centrality, according to which philosophers do not regard intuition as central evidence in philosophy. To that end, the author responds to them, showing that they fail to affect the account of intuition developed in this book. This text appeals to students and researchers working in epistemology. (shrink)

It is widely presumed that intuitions about thought experiments can help overturn philosophical theories. It is also widely presumed, albeit implicitly, that if thought experiments play any epistemic role in overturning philosophical theories, it is via intuition. In this paper, I argue for a different, neglected epistemic role of philosophical thought experiments, that of improving some reasoner’s appreciation both of what a theory’s predictions consist in and of how those predictions tie to elements of the theory. I call this role (...) theory clarification. I show that theory clarification does not proceed via intuition, and I argue that it is only in conjunction with theory clarification that intuitions about thought experiments can help overturn philosophical theories. I close by sketching how a more radical view might be true, on which thought experiments help justify the rejection of philosophical theories exclusively by clarifying theories, not by any intuitions those thought experiments might generate. (shrink)

Using Riemann’s Rearrangement Theorem, Øystein Linnebo (2020) argues that, if it were possible to apply an infinite positive weight and an infinite negative weight to a working scale, the resulting net weight could end up being any real number, depending on the procedure by which these weights are applied. Appealing to the First Postulate of Archimedes’ treatise on balance, I argue instead that the scale would always read 0 kg. Along the way, we stop to consider an infinitely jittery flea, (...) an infinitely protracted border conflict, and an infinitely electric glass rod. (shrink)

This chapter proceeds from the standard picture of the relation between intuitions and experimental philosophy: the alleged evidential role of intuitions about hypothetical cases, and experimental philosophy’s challenge to these judgments, based on their variation with philosophically irrelevant factors. I will survey some of the main defenses of this standard picture against the x-phi challenge, most of which fail. Concerning the most popular defense, the expertise defense, I will draw the bleak conclusion that intuitive expertise of the envisaged kind is (...) largely a myth. Next, I will consider the mischaracterization objection, which has mainly been developed by Deutsch and Cappelen on the basis of textual evidence: that philosophers do not appeal to intuitions as evidence for their case judgments, but instead argue for them. This would render the x-phi challenge mostly irrelevant, due to its focus on intuitions about hypothetical cases. I will then consider a few instructive replies to the mischaracterization objection, which are all unconvincing on further inspection. Finally, I will discuss some potential normative consequences of the mischaracterization objection, and I will argue that it recommends a shift away from the excessive focus on intuitions about cases in metaphilosophy and experimental philosophy, towards more work on the role of argumentation in the method of cases. More speculatively, I claim that philosophers should always argue for their case judgments, even if they have strong intuitions about them, because an argument-based methodology would be more transparent and philosophically fruitful than one that mainly relies on intuition. (shrink)

Counterexample thought experiments (hereafter thought experiments) are the usual way to show that some philosophical theses that are proposed as necessarily true are, in fact, false. This paper explores a positive epistemic role for thought experiments in philosophical theorising. At least in most cases, the rationale of employing the intuitive judgement of a thought experiment, say, ψ1, against a target thesis is that it satisfies the formal requirement of the Non-empirical Instance: If φ is ψ, then if φ1 (/ψ1), one (...) can see in a non-empirical way that ψ1 (/φ1), where φ1 and ψ1 are instances of φ and ψ, respectively (section 1). This paper shows why deep understanding (or general intuition) does not do any non-empirical justificatory work to support substantive philosophical theses (section 2). It then analyses the two most promising strategies for non-empirical justification, namely, the Abduction and the Pragmatic (sections 3 & 4). These strategies involve adopting a weaker notion of intuition that is to the least extent suitable for judging particular thought experiment cases non-empirically. The non-empirical justification they render to (most) substantive philosophical theses can be put as follows: Given the presupposition that a substantive philosophical thesis can be defended successfully against thought experimentation, such a thesis is only justified non-empirically in the sense that it is rational to choose it, in contrast to its rivals, because it deals with relevant thoughtful challenges better. Without engaging in experimental philosophers’ criticisms, this paper presents another reason why general intuitions should not do essential justificatory work to support substantive philosophical theses by means of the analysis of the positive role of thought experimentation (section 5). (shrink)

In recent years, two competing methodological frameworks have developed in the study of the epistemology of philosophy. The traditional camp, led by experimental philosophy and its allies, has made inferences about the epistemology of philosophy based on the reactions, or intuitions, people have to works of philosophy. In contrast, multiple authors have followed the lead of Deutsch and Cappelen by setting aside experimental data in favor of inferences based on careful examination of the text of notable works of philosophy. In (...) other words, the debate is split between authors focusing on philosophy’sconsumptionand those focusing on philosophy’sproduction. This paper examines the motivation for focusing on original texts and other evidence of philosophy’s production and finds it lacking. Drawing upon Hills’ distinction between propagation and transmission, I argue that the social epistemology of philosophy does not justify the recent focus on original texts of philosophy. Because the philosophical knowledge of consumers of philosophy is likelyinspiredby producers of philosophy, as opposed to epistemically grounded in the producers’ epistemic states, experimental philosophy had it right all along—if we want to know the epistemic standing of philosophy, we need to look to philosophy’s consumers. (shrink)