Intuitions over arguments or arguments over intuitions? – An empirical study on Chinese participants.
Saved in:
| Title: | Intuitions over arguments or arguments over intuitions? – An empirical study on Chinese participants. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Wu, Su (AUTHOR), Huang, Junwei (AUTHOR), Zhan, Hao (AUTHOR), Xu, Jiawei (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Philosophical Psychology. May2026, Vol. 39 Issue 4, p1421-1448. 28p. |
| Subjects: | Argument, Intuition, Philosophy methodology, Experimental philosophy, Chinese people, Thought experiments, Cross-cultural studies |
| Abstract: | According to experimental philosophers, the diversity and sensitivity of intuitions have posed a severe threat to the traditional philosophical methodology, which relies extensively on intuitions triggered by thought experiments. However, defenders of traditional armchair philosophical methodology argue that experimental philosophers misunderstand the importance of intuitions for philosophy. What philosophers genuinely rely on are arguments, which provide a reliable foundation for their judgments on thought experiments. However, a recent cross-cultural experiment conducted by Wysocki (2017) indicates that arguments do not affect the judgments about Gettier cases as philosophers once expected. That poses a challenge to those philosophers who contend that judgments are based on arguments. In this paper, we expand the experimental investigation of the effect of arguments on judgments about thought experiments. We report the result of three experiments in which eleven thought experiments drawn from multiple philosophical subdisciplines were used. It turns out that arguments have significant impacts on Chinese participants' judgments in response to most of these thought experiments. These results present new resources for defending the traditional methodology but also bring new challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Philosophical Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
Be the first to leave a comment!
