“Platonic” thought experiments: how on earth?
Synthese 187 (2):731-752 (2012)
| Abstract | Brown (The laboratory of the mind. Thought experiments in the natural science, 1991a , 1991b ; Contemporary debates in philosophy of science, 2004 ; Thought experiments, 2008 ) argues that thought experiments (TE) in science cannot be arguments and cannot even be represented by arguments. He rest his case on examples of TEs which proceed through a contradiction to reach a positive resolution (Brown calls such TEs “platonic”). This, supposedly, makes it impossible to represent them as arguments for logical reasons: there is no logic that can adequately model such phenomena. (Brown further argues that this being the case, “platonic” TEs provide us with irreducible insight into the abstract realm of laws of nature). I argue against this approach by describing how “platonic” TEs can be modeled within the logical framework of adaptive proofs for prioritized consequence operations. To show how this mundane apparatus works, I use it to reconstruct one of the key examples used by Brown, Galileo’s TE involving falling bodies. | |||||||||
| Keywords | thought experiments non-monotonic logic Norton John Brown | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMichael T. Stuart (2012). REVIEW: James R. Brown, Laboratory of the Mind. [REVIEW] Spontaneous Generations 6 (1):237-241.
Ksenija Puškarić (2007). Brown and Berkeley. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (2):177-180.
Richard Arthur (1999). On Thought Experiments as a Priori Science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13 (3):215 – 229.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (forthcoming). Intuitions in Science: Thought Experiments as Argument Pumps. In Anthony R. Booth & Darrell P. Rowbottom (eds.), Intuitions.
Ian Hacking (1992). Do Thought Experiments Have a Life of Their Own? Comments on James Brown, Nancy Nersessian and David Gooding. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:302 - 308.
Nenad Miščević (2007). Modelling Intuitions and Thought Experiments. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (2):181-214.
Yiftach J. H. Fehige (2012). 'Experiments of Pure Reason': Kantianism and Thought Experiments in Science. Epistemologia 35 (1):141-160.
Sören Häggqvist (2007). The A Priori Thesis. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):47-61.
John D. Norton (2004). Why Thought Experiments Do Not Transcend Empiricism. In Christopher Hitchcock (ed.), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science. Blackwell.
Edouard Machery (2011). Thought Experiments and Philosophical Knowledge. Metaphilosophy 42 (3):191-214.
Yiftach J. H. Fehige (2005). Kreativität Im Denken. Eine Kritik des Reliabilitätsarguments von John D. Norton Gegen Rationalistische Epistemologien Zur Methode des Gedankenexperiments. In Günter Abel (ed.), Kreativität. Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin.
Ana Butković (2007). What is the Function of Thought Experiments. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):63-67.
James Robert Brown (2004). Peeking Into Plato's Heaven. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1126-1138.
James Robert Brown (2007). Thought Experiments in Science, Philosophy, and Mathematics. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):3-27.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-10-18Total downloads20 ( #61,589 of 549,198 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,418 of 549,198 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
