David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1164-1175 (2004)
Thought experiment acquires evidential significance only on particular metaphysical assumptions. These include the thesis that science aims at uncovering "phenomena"universal and stable modes in which the world is articulatedand the thesis that phenomena are revealed imperfectly in actual occurrences. Only on these Platonically inspired assumptions does it make sense to bypass experience of actual occurrences and perform thought experiments. These assumptions are taken to hold in classical physics and other disciplines, but not in sciences that emphasize variety and contingency, such as Aristotelian natural philosophy and some forms of historiography. This explains why thought experiments carry weight in the former but not the latter disciplines.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Michela Massimi (2011). From Data to Phenomena: A Kantian Stance. Synthese 182 (1):101-116.
Julian Reiss (2012). The Explanation Paradox. Journal of Economic Methodology 19 (1):43-62.
Claus Beisbart (2012). How Can Computer Simulations Produce New Knowledge? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (3):395-434.
Similar books and articles
Boris Grozdanoff (2007). Reconstruction, Justification and Incompatibility in Norton's Account of Thought Experiments. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):69-79.
Yiftach J. H. Fehige (2011). Gedankenexperimente in der Offenbarungstheologie? Eine Erste Annäherung/ Thought Experiments in Revealed Theology? A First Approach. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 59 (1):209-229.
John D. Norton (2004). Why Thought Experiments Do Not Transcend Empiricism. In Christopher Hitchcock (ed.), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science. Blackwell. 44-66.
Aspasia S. Moue, Kyriakos A. Masavetas & Haido Karayianni (2006). Tracing the Development of Thought Experiments in the Philosophy of Natural Sciences. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 37 (1):61 - 75.
Alisa Bokulich (2001). Rethinking Thought Experiments. Perspectives on Science 9 (3):285-307.
James Robert Brown (2007). Thought Experiments in Science, Philosophy, and Mathematics. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):3-27.
Roy A. Sorensen (1992). Thought Experiments. Oxford University Press.
W. J. (1996). The Evidential Significance of Thought Experiment in Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 27 (2):233-250.
Michael A. Bishop (1999). Why Thought Experiments Are Not Arguments. Philosophy of Science 66 (4):534-541.
Elke Brendel (2004). Intuition Pumps and the Proper Use of Thought Experiments. Dialectica 58 (1):89–108.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads34 ( #54,096 of 1,100,083 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #304,128 of 1,100,083 )
How can I increase my downloads?