Synthese 190 (10):1771-1792 (2013)
|Abstract||This paper considers ways that experimental design can affect judgments about informally presented context shifting experiments. Reasons are given to think that judgments about informal context shifting experiments are affected by an exclusive reliance on binary truth value judgments and by experimenter bias. Exclusive reliance on binary truth value judgments may produce experimental artifacts by obscuring important differences of degree between the phenomena being investigated. Experimenter bias is an effect generated when, for example, experimenters disclose (even unconsciously) their own beliefs about the outcome of an experiment. Eliminating experimenter bias from context shifting experiments makes it far less obvious what the “intuitive” responses to those experiments are. After it is shown how those different kinds of bias can affect judgments about informal context shifting experiments, those experiments are revised to control for those forms of bias. The upshot of these investigations is that participants in the contextualist debate who employ informal experiments should pay just as much attention to the design of their experiments as those who employ more formal experimental techniques if they want to avoid obscuring the phenomena they aim to uncover|
|Keywords||Contextualism Experimental design Experimental bias Linguistic experiments Intuitions Metaphilosophy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nat Hansen (2012). On an Alleged Truth/Falsity Asymmetry in Context Shifting Experiments. Philosophical Quarterly 62 (248):530-545.
Nat Hansen & Emmanuel Chemla (2013). Experimenting on Contextualism. Mind and Language 28 (3):286-321.
Brent Strickland & Aysu Suben (2012). Experimenter Philosophy: The Problem of Experimenter Bias in Experimental Philosophy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 3 (3):457-467.
Ana C. Santos (2009). Behavioral Experiments: How and What Can We Learn About Human Behavior. Journal of Economic Methodology 16 (1):71-88.
Nat Hansen (forthcoming). Contrasting Cases. In James Beebe (ed.), Advances in Experimental Epistemology. Continuum.
Michael Devitt (2012). Whither Experimental Semantics? Theoria 27 (1):5-36.
Shaun Gallagher & Jesper B. Sorensen (2006). Experimenting with Phenomenology. Consciousness and Cognition 15 (1):119-134.
Ángel Pinillos, Nick Smith, G. Shyam Nair, Cecilea Mun & Peter Marchetto (2011). Philosophy's New Challenge: Experiments and Intentional Action. Mind and Language 26 (1):115-139.
Joseph Shieber (2010). On the Nature of Thought Experiments and a Core Motivation of Experimental Philosophy. Philosophical Psychology 23 (4):547-564.
Sebastian Lutz (2009). Ideal Language Philosophy and Experiments on Intuitions. Studia Philosophica Estonica 2 (2):117-139.
Peter Urbach (1985). Randomization and the Design of Experiments. Philosophy of Science 52 (2):256-273.
Alvin E. Roth (2001). Form and Function in Experimental Design. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):427-428.
Joachim Horvath & Thomas Grundmann (eds.) (2012). Experimental Philosophy and its Critics. Routledge.
Robert Sugden (2005). Experiments as Exhibits and Experiments as Tests. Journal of Economic Methodology 12 (2):291-302.
Kan Chen Peng (1967). The Design and Analysis of Scientific Experiments. Reading, Mass.,Addison-Wesley Pub. Co..
Added to index2012-09-24
Total downloads21 ( #65,382 of 722,935 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,098 of 722,935 )
How can I increase my downloads?