David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Oxford University Press (1992)
Sorensen presents a general theory of thought experiments: what they are, how they work, what are their virtues and vices. On Sorensen's view, philosophy differs from science in degree, but not in kind. For this reason, he claims, it is possible to understand philosophical thought experiments by concentrating on their resemblance to scientific relatives. Lessons learned about scientific experimentation carry over to thought experiment, and vice versa. Sorensen also assesses the hazards and pseudo-hazards of thought experiments. Although he grants that there are interesting ways in which the method leads us astray, he attacks most scepticism about thought experiments as arbitrary. They should be used, he says, as they generally are used--as part of a diversified portfolio of techniques. All of these devices are individually susceptible to abuse, fallacy, and error. Collectively, however, they provide a network of cross-checks that make for impressive reliability.
|Keywords||Thought experiments Philosophy and science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Buy the book||$27.81 used (48% off) $27.82 new (48% off) $50.35 direct from Amazon (5% off) Amazon page|
|Call number||B105.T54.S67 1992|
|ISBN(s)||019512913X 0585160740 9780195129137|
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
Gordon Prescott Barnes (2007). Necessity and Apriority. Philosophical Studies 132 (3):495 - 523.
Roman Frigg & Julian Reiss (2009). The Philosophy of Simulation: Hot New Issues or Same Old Stew? Synthese 169 (3):593 - 613.
Joseph Shieber (2010). On the Nature of Thought Experiments and a Core Motivation of Experimental Philosophy. Philosophical Psychology 23 (4):547-564.
Adrian Walsh (2011). A Moderate Defence of the Use of Thought Experiments in Applied Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (4):467-481.
Shaun Nichols (2008). Imagination and theI. Mind and Language 23 (5):518-535.
Similar books and articles
Martin Bunzl (1996). The Logic of Thought Experiments. Synthese 106 (2):227 - 240.
Jeanne Peijnenburg & David Atkinson (2003). When Are Thought Experiments Poor Ones? Journal for General Philosophy of Science 34 (2):305-322.
David Atkinson (2003). When Are Thought Experiments Poor Ones? Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 34 (2):305 - 322.
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.
Denny Borsboom, Gideon J. Mellenbergh & Jaap van Heerden (2002). Functional Thought Experiments. Synthese 130 (3):379 - 387.
Daniel Cohnitz (2006). Poor Thought Experiments? A Comment on Peijnenburg and Atkinson. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 37 (2):373 - 392.
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 downloads62 ( #26,692 of 1,101,646 )
Recent downloads (6 months)17 ( #12,877 of 1,101,646 )
How can I increase my downloads?