Authors
Brent Strickland
Institut Jean Nicod
Helen De Cruz
Saint Louis University
Abstract
This special issue on what some regard as a crisis of replicability in cognitive science (i.e. the observation that a worryingly large proportion of experimental results across a number of areas cannot be reliably replicated) is informed by three recent developments. First, philosophers of mind and cognitive science rely increasingly on empirical research, mainly in the psychological sciences, to back up their claims. This trend has been noticeable since the 1960s (see Knobe, 2015). This development has allowed philosophers to draw on a wider range of relevant resources, but it also makes them vulnerable to relying on claims that may not survive further scrutiny. If we have reasons to believe that a large proportion of findings in the psychological sciences cannot be reliably replicated, this would be a problem for philosophers who use such findings in their work. Second, philosophers are increasingly designing and carrying out their own experiments to back up claims, or to test claims earlier made from the armchair, for example, on the perceived permissibility of diverting trolleys or on the nature of free will. This growing field of experimental philosophy has diversified the intellectual field in philosophy, but may also be vulnerable to issues of replicability that philosophers did not face before. Third, the recent evidence of apparently widespread non-replicability in the social sciences (and other fields) has forced philosophers of science to grapple with long standing questions from their field from a new perspective. To what extent does replicability matter for theory construction? How do the notions of replicability and scientific progress interact? How can normative insights from philosophy of science be used in order to improve scientific practice? It is with these three developments in mind—the increasing importance of empirically-informed philosophy, of experimental philosophy, and of philosophy of science around replicability—that this special issue has been conceived.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s13164-021-00531-y
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

On Fraud.Liam Kofi Bright - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (2):291-310.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The limits of replicability.Stephan Guttinger - 2020 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 10 (2):1-17.
JSE 32:3 Fall 2018 Editorial.Stephen Braude - 2018 - Journal of Scientific Exploration 32 (3).
Cognitive Anthropology Is a Cognitive Science.James S. Boster - 2012 - Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (3):372-378.
Returning to a New Home.Robert L. Goldstone - 2005 - Cognitive Science 29 (1):1-4.
Replicability of Experiment.John D. Norton - 2015 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 30 (2):229.
Cognitive Science News Editorial Staff Changes.M. Ringle - 1992 - Cognitive Science 16 (1):ii-iv.
The Epistemic Norms of Intra-Scientific Testimony.Mikkel Gerken - 2015 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 45 (6):568-595.
A Cognitive Reformation.Ashok Goel - 2019 - Topics in Cognitive Science 11 (4):892-901.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-03-13

Total views
38 ( #298,989 of 2,507,638 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #119,010 of 2,507,638 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes