The Methodological Necessity of Experimental Philosophy

Discipline Filosofiche 25 (1):23-42 (2015)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Must philosophers incorporate tools of experimental science into their methodological toolbox? I argue here that they must. Tallying up all the resources that are now part of standard practice in analytic philosophy, we see the problem that they do not include adequate resources for detecting and correcting for their own biases and proclivities towards error. Methodologically sufficient resources for error- detection and error-correction can only come, in part, from the deployment of specific methods from the sciences. However, we need not imagine that the resulting methodological norms will be so empirically demanding as to require that all appeals to intuition must first be precertified by a thorough vetting by teams of scientists. Rather, I sketch a set of more moderate methodological norms for how we might best include these necessary tools of experimental philosophy.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
WEITMN
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-05-03
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2016-05-03

Total downloads
224 ( #11,596 of 37,116 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
37 ( #9,584 of 37,116 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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