David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Analysis 69 (1):125-135 (2009)
My agreement with Hilary Kornblith goes deeper than any remaining disagreement. We agree that armchair methods have a legitimate place in philosophy, for instance in logic. We agree that appeals to experimental data also have a legitimate place in philosophy, for instance in the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of time, and that those branches study mind and time themselves, not just our concepts of them. We agree that the proper balance between armchair and other methods cannot be fully determined in advance, but should to some extent emerge from the future development of the discipline. Nevertheless, as Kornblith says, we are not placing quite the same bets on what that balance will be. I expect armchair methods to play legitimately a more dominant role in future philosophy than he expects them to – of course, such differences in emphasis can result in widening divergence in practice.The Philosophy of Philosophy welcomes a significant degree of methodological diversity short of ‘Anything goes’, for often the best long-run way to evaluate a philosophical method is for many able philosophers to use it for many years . That includes methods that make heavy use of experimental data. The book is not an attack on experimental philosophy, in which I have even dabbled myself . I could hardly object to Kornblith's suggestion that experimental psychology should contribute to epistemology, since in discussing the epistemology of logic I appeal to experimental data from the psychology of reasoning . Indeed, it would be a grave failure of philosophy in its current state of development if it neglected to explore the philosophical applications of experimental data far more extensively than has hitherto been done. It is work that needs doing and surely will be done, although I do not expect to ….
|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
Herman Cappelen (2013). Nonsense and Illusions of Thought. Philosophical Perspectives 27 (1):22-50.
Brian Flanagan (2013). Analyticity and the Deviant Logician: Williamson's Argument From Disagreement. [REVIEW] Acta Analytica 28 (3):345-352.
Yiftach Fehige & Michael T. Stuart (2014). Introduction to Special Issue of Perspectives on Science. Perspectives on Science 22 (2):167-178.
Similar books and articles
Joel Pust (1996). Induction, Focused Sampling and the Law of Small Numbers. Synthese 108 (1):89 - 104.
Theodore W. Nunez (1999). The Author Replies [to Frankenberry and Jackson]. Journal of Religious Ethics 27 (1):145 - 148.
Thomas H. Moore (1941). Radio Replies. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 16 (2):397-397.
Ernest Sosa (2009). Replies to Commentators on a Virtue Epistemology (Oxford University Press, 2007). Philosophical Studies 144 (1):137--147.
Fredrik Stjernberg, Not so Epiphenomenal Qualia. Spinning Ideas.
John Zeis (2003). Completing Kornblith's Project. International Philosophical Quarterly 43 (1):67-90.
Hilary Kornblith (2005). Replies to Alvin Goldman, Martin Kusch and William Talbott. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (2):427–441.
Ernest Sosa (2000). Replies to Tomberlin, Kornblith, Lehrer. Noûs 34:38 - 42.
Paul Arthur Schilpp (1952). The Philosophy of G. E. Moore. New York, Tudor Pub. Co..
Added to index2009-02-23
Total downloads95 ( #42,599 of 1,902,050 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #55,057 of 1,902,050 )
How can I increase my downloads?