The Epistemology of Thought Experiments: First Person versus Third Person Approaches

K. Ludwig
{"title":"The Epistemology of Thought Experiments: First Person versus Third Person Approaches","authors":"K. Ludwig","doi":"10.1111/J.1475-4975.2007.00160.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There has been a movement recently to bring to bear on the conduct of philosophical thought experiments (henceforth “thought experiments”) the empirical techniques of the social sciences, that is, to treat their conduct as in the nature of an anthropological investigation into the application conditions of the concepts of a group of subjects. This is to take a third person, in contrast to the traditional first person, approach to conceptual analysis.This has taken the form of conducting surveys about scenarios used in thought experiments. It has been called “experimental philosophy” by its practitioners and has been applied across a range of fields: the philosophy of language, the philosophy of action, the philosophy of mind, epistemology, and ethics. The results of these surveys have been used to support conclusions about the application conditions of particular concepts of interest in philosophy. They have also been used to support (and been motivated by) skeptical claims about the traditional approach to conceptual analysis. The","PeriodicalId":369373,"journal":{"name":"Epistemology eJournal","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"241","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epistemology eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1475-4975.2007.00160.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 241

Abstract

There has been a movement recently to bring to bear on the conduct of philosophical thought experiments (henceforth “thought experiments”) the empirical techniques of the social sciences, that is, to treat their conduct as in the nature of an anthropological investigation into the application conditions of the concepts of a group of subjects. This is to take a third person, in contrast to the traditional first person, approach to conceptual analysis.This has taken the form of conducting surveys about scenarios used in thought experiments. It has been called “experimental philosophy” by its practitioners and has been applied across a range of fields: the philosophy of language, the philosophy of action, the philosophy of mind, epistemology, and ethics. The results of these surveys have been used to support conclusions about the application conditions of particular concepts of interest in philosophy. They have also been used to support (and been motivated by) skeptical claims about the traditional approach to conceptual analysis. The
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
思维实验的认识论:第一人称与第三人称方法
最近出现了一种运动,将社会科学的经验技术引入哲学思想实验(以下简称“思想实验”)的进行,也就是说,将其行为视为对一组主体的概念的应用条件进行人类学调查的本质。这是采用第三人称,而不是传统的第一人称,来进行概念分析。研究的形式是对思维实验中使用的场景进行调查。它被实践者称为“实验哲学”,并被应用于一系列领域:语言哲学、行动哲学、心灵哲学、认识论和伦理学。这些调查的结果被用来支持关于哲学中特定概念的应用条件的结论。它们也被用来支持(并受到)对传统概念分析方法的质疑。的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Problems Encountered by School Managers in Supplying School Allowances and Expense Areas Islamic Seminaries: A Brief Historical Survey Four Components of Expertise Reducing Emergence: The Case Studies in Statistic Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics After 100 Years, the Time Has Come to Acknowledge That Boole and Keynes Founded a Mathematically, Technically, and Logically Advanced Approach to Imprecise Probability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1