Research on conspiracy theories has proliferated since 2016, in part due to the US election of President Trump, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increasingly threatening environmental conditions. In the rush to publication given these concerning social consequences, researchers have increasingly treated as definitive a 2016 paper by Michael Wood (Political Psychology, 37(5), 695–705, 2016) that concludes that the phrase “conspiracy theory” has no negative effect upon people’s willingness to endorse a claim. We revisit Wood’s findings and its (re)uptake in the recent (...) literature. Is the label “conspiracy theory” a pejorative? If so, does it sway or affect people’s belief in specific claims of conspiracy (i.e. particular conspiracy theories), or is the effect one that concerns claims of conspiracy more generally (i.e. all conspiracy theories)? Through an examination of the conceptual and methodological scope of Wood’s work and the results of our similar quasi-experimental design, we argue that it is premature to suggest the label “conspiracy theory” has no impact on the believability of a claim, or that it has no rhetorical power. (shrink)

Com o conceito de Filosofia já explicado no trabalho (DOS PROBLEMAS FILOSÓFICOS E SUAS CARACTERÍSTICAS), podemos agora conferir uma ideia mais clara da filosofia se a compararmos com o conhecimento científico tal como atualmente se entende, isto é, com as ciências experimentais. Uma vez a filosofia sendo distinguida com relação às ciências experimentais, faremos uma comparação das soluções que outorgam os dois níveis de conhecimento frente ao mesmo assunto para elucidar, por exemplo, na frente do homem, o mundo, o número, (...) o comportamento humano ou a beleza. -/- 1. DIFERENÇA ENTRE CAUSAS PRÓXIMAS E CAUSAS ÚLTIMAS – A Filosofia estuda as causas últimas (ou supremas), enquanto as ciências experimentais estudam as causas imediatas. Por exemplo, ao estudar o movimento, a física capta o tema por meio de forças, fricções, pesos e balanços, que afetam os corpos. Estas são as causas imediatas, e elas são distinguidas porque sempre permanecem no plano do sensível e do experimentável. Em vez disso, a Filosofia examina os dois princípios que explicam todos os demais, os tornando em sua forma essencial, ou seja, o ato (exemplo: o ato de atritar duas madeiras até produzir fogo) e a potência (exemplo: a potência de um carro que vai de 0 a 100 Km/h em questão de segundos). Essas são causas supremas e não permanecem mais no nível sensível; elas são capturadas apenas no nível inteligível. Em outras palavras, o filósofo tenta chegar à essência do objeto estudado, e sua explicação é no sentido vertical, pois deixa o nível sensível e experimental. Em contrapartida, o cientista elabora explicações em um sentido horizontal, dentro do nível experimental. A diferença fundamental de ambos os tipos de conhecimento residem, então, em seu diferente objeto formal. -/- 2. TOTALIDADE E PARCIALIDADE DO OBJETO MATERIAL - A filosofia procura abranger a totalidade das coisas; seu objeto material é o mais largo que pode ser conferido. Por outro lado, as outras ciências são particulares, para dizer, elas estudam uma certa parte ou setor, entre todas as entidades. À exemplo, a Filosofia apropriasse de objetos da língua portuguesa (linguística e linguagem); da Antropologia (Antropologia filosófica e Cultura); da História; da Geografia; da Física; da Cosmologia; da Ciência Política; da Sociologia; etc. -/- Nesse sentido, já esclarecemos que mesmo quando a Filosofia estuda as mesmas coisas que as outras ciências tratam, Filosofia e ciência não se confundem, uma vez que o objeto formal é diferente em ambas. -/- 3. MÉTODO EXPERIMENTAL E MÉTODO RACIONAL – As ciências experimentais sublinham a necessidade da experiência sensível, como efeito, as leis da natureza não são deduzidas mediante certos princípios, mas têm que observar-se de uma maneira sensata, mesmo usando a experimentação. -/- Por sua parte, a Filosofia, mesmo que não possa prescindir do experiência sensível, insiste no método racional e no uso do entendimento, graças ao qual é possível capturar as essências, os primeiros princípios e as causas supremas que fundamentam o Universo. -/- 4. DIFERENÇA ENTRE EPISTEME E SOFIA - Outra forma de capturar a diferença entre os dois tipos de conhecimento, está presente no que Aristóteles chamou episteme e sofia. Episteme é a ciência, mas entendida não como um conjunto de verdades, mas como um hábito intelectual demonstrativo. O sujeito que possui essa qualidade tem a facilidade de demonstrar com rigor e precisão suas afirmações, ele pode basear sua tese, isto é, ele dá as causas do que ele detém. -/- Sofia, por outro lado, é a sabedoria que o filósofo ama (filos: que ama; sofia: sabedoria) e consiste em uma conjunção de episteme (verdade suprema) e nous (razão). A Filosofia, portanto, inclui também a episteme ao hábito demonstrativo, mas acrescenta outra coisa: o nous. -/- Nous é o hábito intuitivo dos primeiros princípios; é a qualidade mental (virtude intelectual, diz Aristóteles) pela qual um sujeito tem a facilidade para voltar de uma forma intuitiva para os primeiros princípios que servem como base para toda a demonstração e base de uma determinada tese por ele refutada. -/- Portanto, a sofia, na medida em que contém a episteme, participa do rigor científico e, na medida em que contém o nous, aprofunda-se aos primeiros princípios. Logo, chegamos a semelhança e a diferença entre a ciência e a Filosofia. O filósofo é, então, um cientista que investiga as causas e os primeiros princípios. -/- 5. OS GRAUS DA ABSTRAÇÃO -Aristóteles e Sto. Tomás de Aquino explicaram a tripla graduação de abstração formal. -/- No primeiro grau, que corresponde à física, o sujeito individual é dispensado e a entidade móvel é estudada. -/- No segundo grau, a matéria sensível é dispensada e a entidade quântica (a quantidade) é estudada. Neste grau está presente a Matemática. -/- E finalmente, no terceiro grau toda a matéria é dispensada, e a entidade é estudada como tal, no horizonte mais amplo possível, que é chamado transcendental, e que cobre tudo o que existe. Este é o terceiro grau de abstração formal, aquele que corresponde à Metafísica, núcleo de toda a Filosofia. -/- Consequentemente, as ciências específicas pertencem a um nível categorial (particularizado), e somente a Metafísica volta-se ao nível transcendental (completamente universal). -/- 6. FILOSOFIA, A CIÊNCIA REGENTE DE TODAS AS OUTRAS - Como uma consequência do supracitado texto, podemos afirmar que a Filosofia, a partir do momento em que preconiza os primeiros princípios, é uma ciência orientadora; e isso por duas razões: -/- A filosofia governa todas as outras ciências, porque baseia-se em todos os princípios delas. No momento em que um cientista analisa os princípios de sua própria ciência, ipso facto está fazendo trabalho filosófico. Por exemplo: Matemática lida com as relações entre quantidades; mas no momento em que um matemático analisa e critica as bases de sua certeza e os princípios que servem para apoiar suas justificativas, vai além do limite de seu campo e da Lógica ou da Teoria do Conhecimento, que são ramos típicos da Filosofia. É precisamente o que aconteceu nos séculos XIX e XX, quando matemáticos conseguiram esclarecer teses que agora estão contidas no ramo chamado Lógica matemática, e isso deve ser entendido como uma extensão da lógica Aristotélica. -/- Por outro lado, a Filosofia é também uma ciência orientadora, uma vez que regem as normas que governam o comportamento humano, com base na análise da natureza do homem e suas demandas, com o qual ele deriva as linhas gerais de um existência autenticamente humana. -/- Para terminar de esclarecer o tema da diferença entre ciência e filosofia, veremos brevemente como existem soluções em diferentes planos, para as mesmas questões problemáticas. -/- 7. AS SOLUÇÕES DA COSMOLOGIA E DA FÍSICA - A primeira é uma ciência filosófica, e o segundo é uma ciência experimental. Ambas tratam das entidades materiais, enquanto móveis. Mas a Cosmologia estuda a essência, a estrutura primária dos corpos, e é assim que a teoria da matéria e da forma (hilemorfismo) surge, o que explica os copríncipios fundamentais na estrutura ou essência de um corpo sensível. Ela também se dedica a estudar a essência da mudança, o espaço, o tempo, etc. -/- Por outro lado, a ciência física, com seus experimentos, consegue penetrar nas causas horizontais dos fenômenos estudados na matéria. Assim, por exemplo, ela estuda o calor como a causa da dilatação dos metais, a lei da relação entre pressão, volume e temperatura dos gases, etc. -/- 8. PSICOLOGIA RACIONAL E PSICOLOGIA EXPERIMENTAL – A primeira forma de psicologia é uma ciência filosófica, e estuda o sujeito da alma, de suas faculdades (inteligência e vontade), imortalidade, espiritualidade, liberdade, a pessoa. -/- Em contrapartida, a psicologia experimental preferencialmente estuda os fenômenos observáveis e suas explicações, em sentido horizontal; por exemplo, o estímulo e a reação correspondente. Usam-se "testes", estatísticas, experimentos feito em um grande número de pessoas. É assim que as leis surgiram, como Weber (que relaciona sensação e estímulo), e também o interessante estudo sobre o inconsciente, a partir de Freud. -/- 9. A ÉTICA, EM RELAÇÃO COM O DIREITO - Também pode ser estabelecido um paralelismo entre Ética e Direito. O primeiro estuda racionalmente o plano do que deveria ser, o que é requerido de acordo com a natureza humana. Seu fruto está nas normas naturais, assim chamadas porque estão inscritas na mesma natureza humana, como exigências de sua estrutura essencial; elas não são criações ou invenções do homem. O Direito também estuda o plano normativo, só que se refere a normas positivas, que o homem inventa para complementar e especificar as regras naturais. -/- Para fundamentar as normas éticas, é necessário recorrer ao estudo ontológico da natureza humana e da reta razão. Para fundamentar as normas positivas do Direito, devemos conhecer empiricamente a situação real da sociedade e suas necessidades específicas. Claro, que deve-se saber também acerca da Ética, cujas normas devem se materializar. 10. OUTRAS CIÊNCIAS PARALELAS - Finalmente, pode-se mencionar outros ramos da Filosofia que têm seu correspondente paralelismo em alguma ciência experimental. Por exemplo: Filosofia das Matemáticas estuda a essência das quantidades, o básico de sua certeza, etc., enquanto a Matemática estuda as relações entre quantidades. -/- A Estética filosófica lida com a essência da arte e de beleza. Seu método é racional. Por outro lado, uma estética científico-experimental trataria os mesmos assuntos, mas no plano do experimental; seus métodos seriam baseados de "testes", estatísticas, observações na história e na civilização atual. -/- 11. AS RAMIFICAÇÕES DA FILOSOFIA – A enorme variedade de seres e questões no Universo originou uma divisão dentro da Filosofia, isto é, originaram-se divisões que se apropriam de questões peculiares, como a Filosofia Existencialista e a preocupação com a existência autêntica do homem, etc. As ramificações mais importantes são as seguintes: -/- a) A lógica. Estuda as características do conhecimento correto. A correção de um pensamento é sua coerência interna, a harmonização e a adaptação de suas diferentes partes entre si. -/- b) A Ética. É o ramo da Filosofia que estuda o comportamento humano a partir do ponto de vista de sua bondade ou maldade. Este ramo tem sido, talvez, o mais conhecido e comentado ao longo dos séculos. -/- c) Antropologia Filosófica. Estuda o ser humano a partir do ponto de vista das suas características essenciais. Seus temas fundamentais são: a pessoa humana, consciência, liberdade, valores e transcendência humana. Foi por onde nasceu a Filosofia propriamente dita, uma vez que Sócrates é alcunhado de “pai” da AF. -/- d) A teoria do conhecimento. Estuda a questão da verdade, isto é, a adequação de um pensamento em relação à realidade. Todos os autores ao longo dos séculos se referiam ao enigma humano que consiste na diferente apreciação da verdade e das coisas. Cada pessoa tem sua própria interpretação da realidade. Este assunto tenta fornecer as pistas que nos conduzem à verdade. e) A estética. Estuda a essência da beleza e da arte. Entre seus assuntos, os mais importantes são o estudo da criatividade humana e a experiência estética, assim como os diferentes gêneros das artes plásticas. -/- f) A Metafísica. É o estudo do ser enquanto ser. É, talvez, o estudo mais apropriado e profundo que a filosofia empreendeu. Ser é o constituinte fundamental de todas as coisas (entidades), o que lhes dá inteligibilidade e estrutura. No estudo da Metafísica, é onde a Filosofia adquire seu máximo nível e valor. Atualmente, a Metafísica sofreu uma série de críticas por parte de autores famosos como Kant. -/- g) Teodiceia ou Teologia Natural (considerada como parte da Metafísica). É o estudo sobre a essência e a existência de Deus. Deve ser claramente distinguida em relação à religião e à teologia. O primeiro não é uma ciência, mas a instituição que tenta a união do homem com Deus. O segundo sim, é uma ciência, mas sua principal base está na revelação e na fé. Na Filosofia, a Teodiceia tenta investigar tudo acerca de Deus, mas sem levar em conta (e sem rejeitar ou desvalorizar) os dados da revelação, como a Bíblia. -/- h) Existem vários ramos da Filosofia que se aplicam ao estudo de temas já tratados por outras disciplinas. É assim que podemos mencionar a Filosofia da Ciência, a Filosofia da Linguagem, a Filosofia da História, a Filosofia Social, Filosofia da Matemática, etc. Nem sempre é fácil delimitar o campo da Filosofia e da ciência quando se referem ao mesmo sujeito. Em geral, a Filosofia toca em aspectos essenciais, enquanto outras ciências referem-se a aspectos mensuráveis e estatísticos, fenômenos externos estruturantes ou empiricamente observáveis. -/- -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- AUBERT, J. M. Filosofía de la Naturaleza. Barcelona: Herder, 2001. 428 pp. -/- CHAUÍ, M. Convite à Filosofia. São Paulo: Ática, 2003. 424 pp. -/- MARÍAS, J. Introduccion a la Filosofía. Madrid: Alianza, 1995. 352 pp. -/- MARITAIN, J. Filosofía de la Naturaleza. Buenos Aires: Club de lectores, 1945. 188 pp. -/- ____________. Los grados del saber. Buenos Aires: Club de lectores, 1968. 763 pp. -/- MORENO, J. A. S. Filosofía de la Ciencia Física. México: Ambriz, 1966. (shrink)

In the past twenty years, scholarly interest in John Dewey's later writings has surged. While later works such as Art as Experience (1934), Logic: The Theory of Inquiry (1938), and Freedom and Culture (1939) have received considerable attention, Knowing and the Known (1949), Dewey's late-in-life collaboration with Arthur F. Bentley, has been largely neglected. A common bias among Dewey scholars is that this work, instead of developing Dewey's Logic, departs from its spirit, reflects the overbearing influence of Bentley on Dewey (...) (who was at the time an octogenarian), and, therefore, merits little serious scholarly consideration. However, Dewey and Bentley engaged in an extended correspondence, collected in John Dewey and Arthur Bentley: A Philosophical Correspondence, 1932-1951 (1964), the result of which was no less than a watershed moment in Dewey's thinking on the experimental method of inquiry. The Logic was improved in ways that incorporated the insights of Charles Sanders Peirce's logic and developed Dewey's earlier work in a direction expressly intended by the aging pragmatist. Indeed, Dewey writes in correspondence with his co-author: "You [Bentley] shouldn't lean too heavily on the [1938] Logic; it wasn't a bad job at the time, but I could do better now [with Knowing and the Known]; largely through association with you and getting the courage to see my thing [logical theory] through without compromise" (Correspondence, 4:595, see also 184, 420, 481, 483-84). One of the few scholars of American pragmatism to acknowledge that Knowing and the Known was a watershed development in Dewey's thinking is Frank X. Ryan, author of an exciting new book, Seeing Together: Mind, Matter, and the Experimental Outlook of John Dewey and Arthur F. Bentley, that clearly and concisely presents the revolutionary method developed in Knowing and Known: the transactional approach. (shrink)

Experimental Philosophy (X-Phi) is now a fully-fledged methodological project with applications in almost all areas of analytic philosophy, including, as of recently, aesthetics. Another methodological project which has been attracting attention in the last few years is conceptual engineering (CE). Its areas of implementation are now diverse, but as was the case initially with experimental philosophy, aesthetics has unfortunately been left out (or perhaps aestheticians have failed to pay attention to CE) until now. In this paper, I argue (...) that if conceptual engineers are interested in expanding their project to the field of aesthetics, which would greatly benefit the field, then they should rely on the existing experimental work of aestheticians. Experimental philosophers have only recently started to join forces with conceptual engineers in various fields, as well as to explore the methodological implications of such an alliance. This paper goes a step further by not only arguing that CE has potential in aesthetics, but that the way to realize this potential is to piggyback, so to speak, on the work of experimental aestheticians. In other words, instead of building a CE project in aesthetics from the ground up, this paper describes the support that CE can and should derive from current experimental aesthetics, thereby making the former’s development more efficiently realizable. Furthermore, I argue that doing so would also be beneficial to experimental aesthetics. Currently, the integration of X-Phi to the wider field of aesthetics is losing ground because certain objections—notably, the objection that X-Phi cannot be of relevance to normative questions—have not been properly refuted. By pairing up with a normative programme like CE, though, experimental aestheticians should finally be able to put these objections to rest. (shrink)

The rise of experimental philosophy has placed metaphilosophical questions, particularly those concerning concepts, at the center of philosophical attention. X-phi offers empirically rigorous methods for identifying conceptual content, but what exactly it contributes towards evaluating conceptual content remains unclear. We show how x-phi complements Rudolf Carnap’s underappreciated methodology for concept determination, explication. This clarifies and extends x-phi’s positive philosophical import, and also exhibits explication’s broad appeal. But there is a potential problem: Carnap’s account of explication was limited to empirical (...) and logical concepts, but many concepts of interest to philosophers are essentially normative. With formal epistemology as a case study, we show how x-phi assisted explication can apply to normative domains. (shrink)

In the mid-seventeenth century a movement of self-styled experimental philosophers emerged in Britain. Originating in the discipline of natural philosophy amongst Fellows of the fledgling Royal Society of London, it soon spread to medicine and by the eighteenth century had impacted moral and political philosophy and even aesthetics. Early modern experimental philosophers gave epistemic priority to observation and experiment over theorising and speculation. They decried the use of hypotheses and system-building without recourse to experiment and, in some quarters, (...) developed a philosophy of experiment. The movement spread to the Netherlands and France in the early eighteenth century and later impacted Germany. Its important role in early modern philosophy was subsequently eclipsed by the widespread adoption of the Kantian historiography of modern philosophy, which emphasised the distinction between rationalism and empiricism and had no place for the historical phenomenon of early modern experimental philosophy. The re-emergence of interest in early modern experimental philosophy roughly coincided with the development of contemporary x-phi and there are some important similarities between the two. (shrink)

Recent developments in experimental philosophy (‘x-phi’) suggest that there is a new way in which the empirical and normative dimensions of bioethics can be brought into successful dialogue with one another. It revolves around conceptual analysis – though not the kind of conceptual analysis one might perform in an armchair. Following Édouard Machery, this is Conceptual Analysis Rebooted. In short, morally-pertinent medical concepts like ‘treatment’, ‘euthanasia’ and ‘sanctity of life’ can each have several meanings that underwrite inferences with different (...) moral implications. X-phi shows us that an experimental approach to conceptual analysis can make explicit the implicit structures that underpin our thinking about such concepts. By presenting concrete examples, I aim to offer a glimpse of an empirically-grounded, practically-normative 'bioxphi' that demystifies and distinguishes medical concepts, assesses the normative inferences these concepts dispose us to draw and revises those inferences that are deficient. (shrink)

This entry summarizes an emerging subdiscipline of both empirical bioethics and experimental philosophy (“x-phi”) which has variously been referred to as experimental philosophical bioethics, experimental bioethics, or simply “bioxphi”. Like empirical bioethics, bioxphi uses data-driven research methods to capture what various stakeholders think (feel, judge, etc.) about moral issues of relevance to bioethics. However, like its other parent discipline of x-phi, bioxphi tends to favor experiment-based designs drawn from the cognitive sciences – including psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral (...) economics – to tease out why and how stakeholders think as they do. (shrink)

Ad hoc concepts feature prominently in lexical pragmatics. A speaker can use a word or phrase to communicate an ad hoc concept that is different from the lexically encoded concept and the hearer can construct the intended ad hoc concept pragmatically during utterance comprehension. I argue that some philosophical concepts have origins as ad hoc concepts, and such concepts pose a challenge for experimental philosophy regarding these concepts. To illustrate this, I consider philosophers’ ‘what-it’s-like’-concepts and experimental philosophy of (...) consciousness. (shrink)

This paper discusses “impartiality thought experiments”, i.e., thought experiments that attempt to generate intuitions which are unaffected by personal characteristics such as age, gender or race. We focus on the most prominent impartiality thought experiment, the Veil of Ignorance (VOI), and show that both in its original Rawlsian version and in a more generic version, empirical investigations can be normatively relevant in two ways: First, on the assumption that the VOI is effective and robust, if subjects dominantly favor a certain (...) normative judgment behind the VOI this provides evidence in favor of that judgment; if, on the other hand, they do not dominantly favor a judgment this reduces our justification for it. Second, empirical investigations can also contribute to assessing the effectiveness and robustness of the VOI in the first place, thereby supporting or undermining its applications across the board. (shrink)

Much of the recent movement organized under the heading “Experimental Philosophy” has been concerned with the empirical study of responses to thought experiments drawn from the literature on philosophical analysis. I consider what bearing these studies have on the traditional projects in which thought experiments have been used in philosophy. This will help to answer the question what the relation is between Experimental Philosophy and philosophy, whether it is an “exciting new style of [philosophical] research”, “a new interdisciplinary (...) field that uses methods normally associated with psychology to investigate questions normally associated with philosophy” (Knobe et al. 2012), or whether its relation to philosophy consists, as some have suggested, in no more than the word ‘philosophy’ appearing in its title, or whether the truth lies somewhere in between these two views. I first distinguishes different strands in Experimental Philosophy, negative and positive x-phi, and x-phi pursuing philosophy as opposed to x-phi as cognitive science. Next I review some ways in which Experimental Philosophy has been criticized. Finally, I consider what would have to be true for Experimental Philosophy to have one or another sort of relevance to philosophy, whether the assumptions required are true, how we could know it, and the ideal limits of the usefulness Experimental Philosophy to philosophy. I conclude x-phi cannot in principle be a replacement for traditional first person approaches because it yields the wrong kind of knowledge and that it can nonetheless be a practical aid in conducting philosophical thought experiments. n. (shrink)

Prominent critics and champions of Experimental Philosophy (X-Phi) alike have tied its philosophical significance to the philosophical significance of intuition. In this essay, I develop an interpretation of X-Phi which does not require an intuition-driven understanding of traditional philosophy, and the arguments challenged by results in X-Phi. X-Phi's role on this account is primarily dialectical. Its aim is to test the universality of claims which are merely assumed to be true, exploring the limits of our assumptions and showing when (...) a proposition is more controversial than is widely believed. (shrink)

In the human sciences, experimental research is used to establish causal relationships. However, the extrapolation of these results to the target population can be problematic. To facilitate extrapolation, we propose to use the statistical technique Latent Class Regression Analysis in combination with the analogical reasoning theory for extrapolation. This statistical technique can identify latent classes that differ in the effect of X on Y. In order to extrapolate by means of analogical reasoning, one can characterize the latent classes by (...) a combination of features, and then compare these features to features of the target. (shrink)

An important strand of current experimental philosophy promotes a new kind of methodological naturalism. This chapter argues that this new ‘metaphilosophical naturalism’ is fundamentally consistent with key tenets of Wittgenstein’s metaphilosophy, and can provide empirical foundations for therapeutic conceptions of philosophy. Metaphilosophical naturalism invites us to contribute to the resolution of philosophical problems about X by turning to scientific findings about the way we think about X – in general or when doing philosophy. This new naturalism encourages us to (...) use resources from psychology that can empirically vindicate precisely some of the most controversial aspects of Wittgenstein’s conception of philosophy: They can establish the need, and provide key tools, for something worth calling ‘therapy’, in philosophy. As ‘pudding proof’ this chapter shows how methods and findings from psycholinguistics motivate and facilitate a therapeutic approach to a characteristically philosophical problem: ‘the problem of perception’. (shrink)

This chapter proceeds from the standard picture of the relation between intuitions and experimental philosophy: the alleged evidential role of intuitions about hypothetical cases, and experimental philosophy’s challenge to these judgments, based on their variation with philosophically irrelevant factors. I will survey some of the main defenses of this standard picture against the x-phi challenge, most of which fail. Concerning the most popular defense, the expertise defense, I will draw the bleak conclusion that intuitive expertise of the envisaged (...) kind is largely a myth. Next, I will consider the mischaracterization objection, which has mainly been developed by Deutsch and Cappelen on the basis of textual evidence: that philosophers do not appeal to intuitions as evidence for their case judgments, but instead argue for them. This would render the x-phi challenge mostly irrelevant, due to its focus on intuitions about hypothetical cases. I will then consider a few instructive replies to the mischaracterization objection, which are all unconvincing on further inspection. Finally, I will discuss some potential normative consequences of the mischaracterization objection, and I will argue that it recommends a shift away from the excessive focus on intuitions about cases in metaphilosophy and experimental philosophy, towards more work on the role of argumentation in the method of cases. More speculatively, I claim that philosophers should always argue for their case judgments, even if they have strong intuitions about them, because an argument-based methodology would be more transparent and philosophically fruitful than one that mainly relies on intuition. (shrink)

In this paper I will discuss some issues related to a recent trend in experimental philosophy (or x-phi), and try to show the reasons of its late (and scarce) involvement with aesthetics, compared to other areas of philosophical investigation. In order to do this, it is first necessary to ask how an autonomous experimental philosophy of aesthetics could be related to the long-standing tradition of psychological experimental aesthetics. After distinguishing between a “narrow” and a “broad” approach of (...) experimental philosophy, I will then make a distinction between topics in aesthetics pertaining to perceptual and cognitive processes, and traditional issues involved in the analysis of general and culturally-laden concepts. The narrow program of experimental philosophy, focused on the investigation of folk intuitions, is particularly effective only when two general conditions are met: the use of hypothetical scenarios (testing of thought experiments) and the heuristic role of folk intuitions in drawing philosophically relevant conclusions. I will argue that, when aesthetics is concerned, these requirements are not easily met. These difficulties notwithstanding, I will support a pluralistic view where aesthetics is revealed as an instructive example of how experimental approaches and traditional “armchair” philosophy integrate, and enrich each other. (shrink)

Translation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics IX and X (Theta & Iota) into Portuguese, with a few notes, experimental glossary and introduction. The translation, which was made at 2004, is preliminary and its publication was intended to provide a didactic tool for courses as well as a provisional resource in research seminars. It needs some revision. I am currently working (slowly...) on the revision of the translation and a new revised one will surely appear at some point.

Joshua Knobe and Shaun Nichols (eds.), Experimental Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2008, 244 + x pp., ISBN 978-0-19-532326-9.

Experimental philosophy (x-phi) is all the rage. But shouldn't all philosophy be experimental? Jeff Hawley looks at the views of three philosophers on the role and value of x-phi. This month’s PhilosophyNews 'WHiP: The Philosophers' focuses on a chapter from The Compact Compendium of Experimental Philosophy edited by A. Bauer and S. Kornmesser (forthcoming). 'All in the Family: The History and Philosophy of Experimental Philosophy' by Justin Sytsma, Joseph Ulatowski, and Chad Gonnerman digs into the history (...) of various philosophers who have argued for the need to go beyond the tradition methods of the ‘armchair’ philosopher and include empirical research into the mix. (shrink)

Experimental philosophy is a new and somewhat controversial method of philosophical inquiry in which philosophers conduct experiments in order to shed light on issues of philosophical interest. This typically involves surveying ordinary people to find out their "intuitions" (roughly, pre-theoretical judgments) about hypothetical cases important to philosophical theorizing. The controversy surrounding this methodology arises largely because it departs from more traditional ways of doing philosophy. Moreover, some of its practitioners have used it to argue that the more traditional methods (...) are flawed. In Experimental Philosophy, Joshua Knobe and Shaun Nichols are set with the task of introducing readers to this burgeoning field by putting together a collection of some of its most important articles. Given how controversial it has become, this is a heavy burden. I'm happy to say that they have put together a valuable collection that serves as a diplomatic introduction to this exciting new style of research. (shrink)

In the face of continuing assumptions by many scientists and journal editors that p-values provide a gold standard for inference, counter warnings are published periodically. But the core problem is not with p-values, per se. A finding that “p-value is less than α” could merely signal that a critical value has been exceeded. The question is why, when estimating a parameter, we provide a range (a confidence interval), but when testing a hypothesis about a parameter (e.g. µ = x) we (...) proceed as if “=” entails exact equality of the parameter with x. That standard is hard to meet, and is not a standard expected for power calculations, where we are satisfied to reject a null hypothesis H0 if the result is merely “detectably” different from (exact) H0. This paper explores, with resampling (simulation) methods, the impacts on p-values, and alternatives, if the null hypothesis is defined as a thick or thin range of values. It also examines, empirically, the extent to which the p-value may or may not be a good predictor of the probability that H0 is true, given the distribution of the data. (shrink)

Debates about the genuine disease status of controversial diseases rely on intuitions about a range of factors. Adopting tools from experimental philosophy, this paper explores some of the factors that influence judgments about whether low sexual desire should be considered a disease and whether it should be medically treated. Drawing in part on some assumptions underpinning a divide in the literature between viewing low sexual desire as a genuine disease and seeing it as improperly medicalized, we investigate whether health (...) and disease judgments are affected by factors such as an individual’s gender, the cause of the low desire, whether the desire is high or low, and both personal and societal valuations of the condition. Our main findings indicate that (a) the cause of a condition influences whether it is judged a disorder, (b) how the individual values the condition influences whether the condition is seen as a proper target of medical intervention, and (c) perceived dysfunction influences judgments regarding health, disorder classification, medicalization, and medical intervention. Our findings help further illuminate the intricate interplay of factors that influence judgments about health and disease in controversial conditions. (shrink)

Objectivity, as one of the key attributes of science, has become an indispensable part of its ethos and a central theme of the philosophy of science. As such, it has been a subject of philosophical reflection by a number of authors. In our project – in which both philosophers of science and scientists participate – we examine the concept of objectivity in the natural sciences with the tools of experimental philosophy. We aim to identify specific operational dimensions of objectivity, (...) those with which current scientist actually work, thus making them accessible for further theoretical analysis and research. In this text, we present results from the first, qualitative phase of our research based on in-depth interviews and focus groups with scientists working in the Czech Republic. Further, we confront this empirical data with theoretical notions of objectivity. We also present other findings from the research and formulate hypotheses for the research’s subsequent phases. (shrink)

A remarkable feature of the philosophical work on conspiracy theory theory has been that most philosophers agree there is nothing inherently problematic about conspiracy theories (AKA the thesis of particularism). Recent work, however, has challenged this consensus view, arguing that there really is something epistemically wrong with conspiracy theorising (AKA generalism). Are particularism and generalism incompatible? By looking at just how much particularists and generalists might have to give away to make their theoretical viewpoints compatible, I will argue that particularists (...) can accept many of the concerns that motivate generalism because generalism can never be about ‘all’ conspiracy theories without being either ahistorical or apolitical. In the end generalist critiques are best seen as useful guidelines or considerations for the appraising of particular conspiracy theories. (shrink)

Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists have been accused of a great many sins, but are the conspiracy theories conspiracy theorists believe epistemically problematic? Well, according to some recent work, yes, they are. Yet a number of other philosophers like Brian L. Keeley, Charles Pigden, Kurtis Hagen, Lee Basham, and the like have argued ‘No!’ I will argue that there are features of certain conspiracy theories which license suspicion of such theories. I will also argue that these features only license a (...) limited suspicion of these conspiracy theories, and thus we need to be careful about generalising from such suspicions to a view of the warrant of conspiracy theories more generally. To understand why, we need to get to the bottom of what exactly makes us suspicious of certain conspiracy theories, and how being suspicious of a conspiracy theory does not always tell us anything about how likely the theory in question is to be false. (shrink)

Looking at the recent spate of claims about “fake news” which appear to be a new feature of political discourse, I argue that fake news presents an interesting problem in epistemology. Te phenomena of fake news trades upon tolerating a certain indiference towards truth, which is sometimes expressed insincerely by political actors. Tis indiference and insincerity, I argue, has been allowed to fourish due to the way in which we have set the terms of the “public” epistemology that maintains what (...) is considered “rational” public discourse. I argue one potential salve to the problem of fake news is to challenge this public epistemology by injecting a certain ethical consideration back into the discourse. (shrink)

Conspiracy theories are often portrayed as unwarranted beliefs, typically supported by suspicious kinds of evidence. Yet contemporary work in Philosophy argues provisional belief in conspiracy theories is—at the very—least understandable (because conspiracies occur) and if we take an evidential approach—judging individual conspiracy theories on their particular merits—belief in such theories turns out to be warranted in a range of cases. Drawing on this work, I examine the kinds of evidence typically associated with conspiracy theories, showing that the evidential problems typically (...) associated with conspiracy theories are not unique to such theories. As such, if there is a problem with the conspiracy theorist’s use of evidence, it is one of principle: is the principle which guides their use of evidence somehow in error? I argue that whatever we might think about conspiracy theories generally, there is no prima facie case for a scepticism of conspiracy theories based purely on their use of evidence. (shrink)

Conspiracy theories are typically thought to be examples of irrational beliefs, and thus unlikely to be warranted. However, recent work in Philosophy has challenged the claim that belief in conspiracy theories is irrational, showing that in a range of cases, belief in conspiracy theories is warranted. However, it is still often said that conspiracy theories are unlikely relative to non-conspiratorial explanations which account for the same phenomena. However, such arguments turn out to rest upon how we define what gets counted (...) both as a ‘conspiracy’ and a ‘conspiracy theory’, and such arguments rest upon shaky assumptions. It turns out that it is not clear that conspiracy theories are prima facie unlikely, and so the claim that such theories do not typically appear in our accounts of the best explanations for particular kinds of events needs to be reevaluated. (shrink)

In this paper I interrogate the notion of `debunking conspiracy theories’, arguing that the term `debunk’ carries with it pejorative implications, given that the verb `to debunk’ is commonly understood as `to show the wrongness of a thing or concept’. As such, the notion of `debunking conspiracy theories’ builds in the notion that such theories are not just wrong but ought to be shown as being wrong. I argue that we should avoid the term `debunk’ and focus on investigating conspiracy (...) theories. Looking at recent research work in epistemology on conspiracy theory, I argue that the best way to avoid talk of `debunking’ conspiracy theories is by working with a non-pejorative definition of `conspiracy theory’, and forming communities of inquiry which allow us to investigate the warrant of such theories without the prejudice associated with working with a pejorative definition. (shrink)

Belief in conspiracy theories is typically considered irrational, and as a consequence of this, conspiracy theorists––those who dare believe some conspiracy theory––have been charged with a variety of epistemic or psychological failings. Yet recent philosophical work has challenged the view that belief in conspiracy theories should be considered as typically irrational. By performing an intra-group analysis of those people we call “conspiracy theorists”, we find that the problematic traits commonly ascribed to the general group of conspiracy theorists turn out to (...) be merely a set of stereotypical behaviours and thought patterns associated with a purported subset of that group. If we understand that the supposed prob- lem of belief in conspiracy theories is centred on the beliefs of this purported sub- set––the conspiracists––then we can reconcile the recent philosophical contribu- tions to the wider academic debate on the rationality of belief in conspiracy theories. (shrink)

Judging the warrant of conspiracy theories can be difficult, and often we rely upon what the experts tell us when it comes to assessing whether particular conspiracy theories ought to be believed. However, whereas there are recognised experts in the sciences, I argue that only are is no such associated expertise when it comes to the things we call `conspiracy theories,' but that the conspiracy theorist has good reason to be suspicious of the role of expert endorsements when it comes (...) to conspiracy theories and their rivals. The kind of expertise, then, we might associate with conspiracy theories is largely improvised—in that it lacks institutional features—and, I argue, ideally the product of a community of inquiry. (shrink)

In the literature on conspiracy theories, the least contentious part of the academic discourse would appear to be what we mean by a “conspiracy”: a secretive plot between two or more people toward some end. Yet what, exactly, is the connection between something being a conspiracy and it being secret? Is it possible to conspire without also engaging in secretive behavior? To dissect the role of secrecy in con- spiracies – and thus contribute to the larger debate on the epistemology (...) of conspir- acy theories – we dene the concepts of “conspiracy,” “conspirator,” and “secret,” and argue that while conspirators might typically be thought to commit to keeping secrets once their conspiracy is underway, the idea that conspiracies are necessarily secretive to start with is not as obvious as previously thought. (shrink)

I’m to push back on Hill’s (2022) criticism in four ways. First: we need some context for the debate that occurred in the pages of the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective that so concerns Hill. Second: getting precise with our terminology (and not working with stereotypes) is the only theoretically fruitful way to approach the problem of conspiracy theories. Third: I address Hill’s claim there is no evidence George W. Bush or Tony Blair accused their critics, during the build-up (...) the invasion of Iraq in 2003ACE, as being “conspiracy theorists.” Fourth (and finally): I will gently suggest that Hill has succumbed to a stereotypical view of work in Philosophy on conspiracy theories. (shrink)

Section 1 reviews Strawson’s logic of presuppositions. Strawson’s justification is critiqued and a new justification proposed. Section 2 extends the logic of presuppositions to cases when the subject class is necessarily empty, such as (x)((Px & ~Px) → Qx) . The strong similarity of the resulting logic with Richard Diaz’s truth-relevant logic is pointed out. Section 3 further extends the logic of presuppositions to sentences with many variables, and a certain valuation is proposed. It is noted that, given this valuation, (...) Gödel’s sentence becomes neither true nor false. The similarity of this outcome with Goldstein and Gaifman’s solution of the Liar paradox, which is discussed in section 4, is emphasized. Section 5 returns to the definition of meaningfulness; the meaninglessness of certain sentences with empty subjects and of the Liar sentence is discussed. The objective of this paper is to show how all of the above-mentioned concepts are interrelated. (shrink)

An analysis of the recent efforts to define what counts as a "conspiracy theory", in which I argue that the philosophical and non-pejorative definition best captures the phenomenon researchers of conspiracy theory wish to interrogate.

An overview of the current epistemic literature concerning conspiracy theories, as well as indications for future research avenues on the topic.

Talk of fake news is rife in contemporary politics, but what is fake news, and how, if anything, does it differ from news which is fake? I argue that in order to make sense of the phenomenon of fake news, it is necessary to first define it and then show what does and does not fall under the rubric of ‘fake news’. I then go on to argue that fake news is not a new problem. Rather, if there is problem (...) with fake news it is its centrality in contemporary public debate. (shrink)

A reply to “Why ‘Healthy Conspiracy Theories’ Are (Oxy)morons” by Pascal Wagner-Egger, Gérald Bronner, Sylvain Delouvée, Sebastian Dieguez and Nicolas Gauvrit.

A reply to Patrick Stokes' “Between Generalism and Particularism About Conspiracy Theory".

A response to Lee Basham's 'The Need for Accountable Witnesses: A Reply to Dentith'.

A reply to Gérald Bronner, Véronique Campion-Vincent, Sylvain Delouvée, Sebastian Dieguez, Nicolas Gauvrit, Anthony Lantian, and Pascal Wagner-Egger's piece, '“They” Respond: Comments on Basham et al.’s “Social Science’s Conspiracy-Theory Panic: Now They Want to Cure Everyone”.

The scope of Platonism is extended by introducing the concept of a “Platonic computer” which is incorporated in metacomputics. The theoretical framework of metacomputics postulates that a Platonic computer exists in the realm of Forms and is made by, of, with, and from metaconsciousness. Metaconsciousness is defined as the “power to conceive, to perceive, and to be self-aware” and is the formless, con-tentless infinite potentiality. Metacomputics models how metaconsciousness generates the perceived actualities including abstract entities and physical and nonphysical realities. (...) It is postulated that this is achieved via digital computation using the Platonic computer. The introduction of a Platonic computer into the realm of Forms thus bridges the “inverse explanatory gap” and therefore solves the “inverse hard problem of consciousness” in the philosophy of mind. (shrink)

Typical analyses of belief in conspiracy theories have it that identifying as a conspiracy theorist is irrational. However, given that we know conspiracies occur, and theories about said conspiracies can be warranted, should we really be scared of the locution 'I'm a conspiracy theorist...'?

Conspiracies are, by definition, a group activity; to conspire requires two or more people working together towards some end, typically in secret. Conspirators have intentions; this is borne out by the fact they want some end and are willing to engage in action to achieve. Of course, what these intentions are can be hard to fathom: historians have written a lot about the intentions of the assassins of Julius Caesar, for example; did they want to restore the Republic; was Marcus (...) Brutus lusting after power; was it an attempt to curb the ambitions of the plebeian class, who saw in Caesar someone not unlike themselves? If intentions can be hard to infer, who is a knowing conspirator and who is a dupe is almost as tricky to parse. Not all purported members of a conspiracy are conspirators, even if they aid and abet the conspiracy. Take, for example, the notorious lax engineer who the conspirators know will sign off on substandard building compliance measures, making it all the easier for them to plant their controlled demolitions. On some account of causal or even moral responsibility the lax engineer would then be responsible for the subsequent event, the one the conspirators desired. Yet it also seems clear that even if she is responsible in some sense for the culminating event of the conspiracy, it is clear that they did not conspire. Or, at least, we would like to think so, although should the authorities find out about the lax engineer’s involvement, they may well be considered part of the conspiracy, especially if the conspirators do their best to hide their own involvement or identities. (shrink)

A reply to Patrick Stokes' 'Reluctance and Suspicion'—itself a reply to an early piece by myself replying to Stokes—in which I clarify what it is I intend when talking about how we should investigate conspiracy theories.

This reply to an ongoing debate between conspiracy theory researchers from different disciplines exposes the conceptual confusions that underlie some of the disagreements in conspiracy theory research. Reconciling these conceptual confusions is important because conspiracy theories are a multidisciplinary topic and a profound understanding of them requires integrative insights from different fields. Specifically, we distinguish research focussing on conspiracy *theories* (and theorizing) from research of conspiracy *belief* (and mindset, theorists) and explain how particularism with regards to conspiracy theories does not (...) mean we cannot define a problematic subclass of conspiracy beliefs, while avoiding the problems of generalism. We hope this reply helps conspiracy theory researchers recognize the differences between studying conspiracy theories and conspiracy beliefs and appreciate the possibilities for fruitful, integrative, and interdisciplinary research. (shrink)

It is no surprise that the philosophy of religion, the many disciplines counted within the study of religion and theology, and religion-specific studies, all have their own methods and interests, and often proceed necessarily as conversations among small groups of experts. But the intellectual cogency and credibility of such studies also entails a problematization of the boundaries that divide them. While disciplinary distinctions are necessary and valuable, a freer flow of ideas and questions across boundaries is to the benefit of (...) all concerned. In particular, the philosophy of religion proceeds more fruitfully if, among its several dimensions, it is also intentionally comparative and inter-religious, vulnerable to the questions raised by insiders to traditions, and open to the implications of ideas for religious practice. (shrink)

A review of Bernard Will's "Believing Weird Things".

A review of Anna Elisabeth Galeotti's "Political Self-Deception".

In the first part of this article we briefly describe the design and development of a Consciousness Studies concentration at Goddard College, a student centered, progressive educational institution in the northeastern United States. We emphasize the tensions we experienced between different orientations in Consciousness Studies and especially the one related to the scientific and transpersonal ends of the spectrum of consciousness. In the second part, we relate the scientific‐transpersonal issue that we experienced at Goddard to the broader theory and practice (...) of Consciousness Studies. We also link the latter to the so‐called explanatory gap between third and first person forms of consciousness and the call for first person methods of exploring consciousness. Our conclusion is that the scientific approach has the edge and is at risk of assimilating other approaches to the detriment of Consciousness Studies. In our view, the future development of Consciousness Studies, both in theory and practice, requires several different approaches from the scientific to the transpersonal and privileging one is to narrow the field of possibilities and to risk falling prey to one‐sidedness. (shrink)