Reconstruction, Justification and Incompatibility in Norton's Account of Thought Experiments

Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):69-79 (2007)

Authors
Boris Grozdanoff
Central European University
Abstract
In one of the most influential empiricist account on the epistemic nature of thought experiments John Norton proposes a challenge: that no thought experirnent in science could be found that cannot be logically reconstructed as an argument. Norton’s account has two main theses, the epistemic thesis that all information about the physical world delivered through a thought experiment comes solely frorn experience and the reconstruction thesis that all thought experiments could be reconstructed as arguments. In the present paper I argue that in at least sorne cases Norton’s theses are incompatible with each other and therefore their combination could not form a reliable account. I try to show that sometimes the experience available could not justify the conclusion of a thought experiment and even contradicts it. I suggest an analysis of Einstein’s Train Thought Experiment as a counterexample to the challenge
Keywords Analytic Philosophy  Contemporary Philosophy
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 1333-1108
DOI croatjphil20077132
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 39,645
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

How to Reconstruct a Thought Experiment.Marek Picha - 2011 - Organon F: Medzinárodný Časopis Pre Analytickú Filozofiu 18 (2):154-188.
Why Thought Experiments Are Not Arguments.Michael A. Bishop - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (4):534-541.
Intuitions in Science: Thought Experiments as Argument Pumps.Darrell Patrick Rowbottom - 2014 - In Anthony R. Booth & Darrell P. Rowbottom (eds.), Intuitions. Oxford University Press. pp. 119-134.
Why Empiricism Won't Work.James Robert Brown - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:271-279.
Peeking Into Plato’s Heaven.James Robert Brown - 2004 - Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1126-1138.
On Thought Experiments: Is There More to the Argument?John D. Norton - 2002 - Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1139-1151.
The A Priori Thesis.Sören Häggqvist - 2007 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):47-61.
Experiments and Thought Experiments in Natural Science.David Atkinson - 2001 - Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 232:209-226.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-01-09

Total views
32 ( #237,452 of 2,325,876 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #534,295 of 2,325,876 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature