Judgements about Thought Experiments

Mind 127 (505):35-67 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Thought experiments invite us to evaluate philosophical theses by making judgements about hypothetical cases. When the judgements and the theses conflict, it is often the latter that are rejected. But what is the nature of the judgements such that they are able to play this role? I answer this question by arguing that typical judgements about thought experiments are in fact judgements of normal counterfactual sufficiency. I begin by focusing on Anna-Sara Malmgren’s defence of the claim that typical judgements about thought experiments are mere possibility judgements. This view is shown to fail for two closely related reasons: it cannot account for the incorrectness of certain misjudgements, and it cannot account for the inconsistency of certain pairs of conflicting judgements. This prompts a reconsideration of Timothy Williamson’s alternative proposal, according to which typical judgements about thought experiments are counterfactual in nature. I show that taking such judgements to concern what would normally hold in instances of the relevant hypothetical scenarios avoids the objections that have been pressed against this kind of view. I then consider some other potential objections, but argue that they provide no grounds for doubt.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
GEDJAT
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-03-09
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Thought-Experiment Intuitions and Truth in Fiction.Ichikawa, Jonathan & Jarvis, Benjamin

View all 24 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2017-11-07

Total downloads
52 ( #112,382 of 31,317 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
52 ( #5,915 of 31,317 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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