The Methodological Necessity of Experimental Philosophy

Discipline Filosofiche 25 (1):23-42 (2015)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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
Upload history
Archival date: 2016-05-03
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
351 ( #12,960 of 51,672 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
29 ( #20,317 of 51,672 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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