Philosophical expertise under the microscope

Synthese 197 (3):1077-1098 (2020)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Recent experimental studies indicate that epistemically irrelevant factors can skew our intuitions, and that some degree of scepticism about appealing to intuition in philosophy is warranted. In response, some have claimed that philosophers are experts in such a way as to vindicate their reliance on intuitions—this has become known as the ‘expertise defence’. This paper explores the viability of the expertise defence, and suggests that it can be partially vindicated. Arguing that extant discussion is problematically imprecise, we will finesse the notion of ‘philosophical expertise’ in order to better reflect the complex reality of the different practices involved in philosophical inquiry. On this basis, we offer a new version of the expertise defence that allows for distinct types of philosophical expertise. The upshot of our approach is that wholesale vindications or rejections of the expertise defence are shown to be unwarranted; we must instead turn to local, piecemeal investigations of philosophical expertise. Lastly, in the spirit of taking our own advice, we exemplify how recent developments from experimental philosophy lend themselves to this approach, and can empirically support one instance of a successful expertise defence.
Reprint years
2020
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
EGLPEU
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-04-05
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Epiphenomenal Qualia.Jackson, Frank

View all 81 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2018-03-21

Total views
295 ( #15,192 of 50,111 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
59 ( #9,594 of 50,111 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.