How not to test for philosophical expertise

Synthese 192 (2):431-452 (2015)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Recent empirical work appears to suggest that the moral intuitions of professional philosophers are just as vulnerable to distorting psychological factors as are those of ordinary people. This paper assesses these recent tests of the ‘expertise defense’ of philosophical intuition. I argue that the use of familiar cases and principles constitutes a methodological problem. Since these items are familiar to philosophers, but not ordinary people, the two subject groups do not confront identical cognitive tasks. Reflection on this point shows that these findings do not threaten philosophical expertise—though we can draw lessons for more effective empirical tests
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
What Do Philosophers Believe?David Bourget & David J. Chalmers - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 170 (3):465-500.
Mortal Questions.Nagel, Thomas
Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions.Weinberg, Jonathan M.; Nichols, Shaun & Stich, Stephen

View all 63 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Philosophical Expertise Under the Microscope.Egler, Miguel & Ross, Lewis Dylan

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
1,323 ( #1,965 of 49,999 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
116 ( #4,126 of 49,999 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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