Are philosophers good intuition predictors?
Are philosophers good intuition predictors?
复制标题
哲学家是很好的直觉预测者吗？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Shen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shen
一些哲学家批评实验哲学是多余的。Jackson（1998）暗示实验哲学研究是不必要的。最近，Dunaway, Edmunds, and Manley（2013）的实证研究表明，实验研究并没有带来令人惊讶的结果，这是之前进行此类研究的一个原因。本文从理论和实证两个方面对“多余”批评进行了反驳。关于实验哲学研究的惊奇性的问题没有得到适当的澄清，它们的形而上学意义也没有得到适当的评估。一旦确定了最相关的问题，对Dunaway及其同事的数据的重新分析实际上就会削弱多余的批评。
Abstract Some philosophers have criticized experimental philosophy for being superfluous. Jackson (1998) implies that experimental philosophy studies are unnecessary. More recently, Dunaway, Edmunds, and Manley (2013) empirically demonstrate that experimental studies do not deliver surprising results, which is a pro tanto reason for foregoing conducting such studies. This paper gives theoretical and empirical considerations against the superfluity criticism. The questions concerning the surprisingness of experimental philosophy studies have not been properly disambiguated, and their metaphilosophical significance have not been properly assessed. Once the most relevant question is identified, a re-analysis of Dunaway and colleagues’ data actually undermines the superfluity criticism.