Are thought experiments “disturbing”? The case of armchair physics

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Standard

Are thought experiments “disturbing”? The case of armchair physics. / Schindler, Samuel; Saint-Germier, Pierre.

I: Philosophical Studies, Bind 177, Nr. 9, 09.2020, s. 2671-2695.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

Schindler, S & Saint-Germier, P 2020, 'Are thought experiments “disturbing”? The case of armchair physics', Philosophical Studies, bind 177, nr. 9, s. 2671-2695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01333-w

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Schindler, Samuel ; Saint-Germier, Pierre. / Are thought experiments “disturbing”? The case of armchair physics. I: Philosophical Studies. 2020 ; Bind 177, Nr. 9. s. 2671-2695.

Bibtex

@article{aee9b77d9e8a44a489c1c7c7c0c4e3ec,
title = "Are thought experiments “disturbing”? The case of armchair physics",
abstract = "Proponents of the “negative program” in experimental philosophy have argued that judgements in philosophical cases, also known as case judgements, are unreliable and that the method of cases should be either strongly constrained or even abandoned. Here we put one of the main proponent{\textquoteright}s account of why philosophical cases may cause the unreliability of case judgements to the test. We conducted our test with thought experiments from physics, which exhibit the exact same supposedly “disturbing characteristics” of philosophical cases.",
keywords = "Armchair physics, Disturbing characteristics, Experimental philosophy, Machery, Method of cases, Thought experiments",
author = "Samuel Schindler and Pierre Saint-Germier",
year = "2020",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1007/s11098-019-01333-w",
language = "English",
volume = "177",
pages = "2671--2695",
journal = "Philosophical Studies",
issn = "0031-8116",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "9",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are thought experiments “disturbing”? The case of armchair physics

AU - Schindler, Samuel

AU - Saint-Germier, Pierre

PY - 2020/9

Y1 - 2020/9

N2 - Proponents of the “negative program” in experimental philosophy have argued that judgements in philosophical cases, also known as case judgements, are unreliable and that the method of cases should be either strongly constrained or even abandoned. Here we put one of the main proponent’s account of why philosophical cases may cause the unreliability of case judgements to the test. We conducted our test with thought experiments from physics, which exhibit the exact same supposedly “disturbing characteristics” of philosophical cases.

AB - Proponents of the “negative program” in experimental philosophy have argued that judgements in philosophical cases, also known as case judgements, are unreliable and that the method of cases should be either strongly constrained or even abandoned. Here we put one of the main proponent’s account of why philosophical cases may cause the unreliability of case judgements to the test. We conducted our test with thought experiments from physics, which exhibit the exact same supposedly “disturbing characteristics” of philosophical cases.

KW - Armchair physics

KW - Disturbing characteristics

KW - Experimental philosophy

KW - Machery

KW - Method of cases

KW - Thought experiments

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071464463&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11098-019-01333-w

DO - 10.1007/s11098-019-01333-w

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85071464463

VL - 177

SP - 2671

EP - 2695

JO - Philosophical Studies

JF - Philosophical Studies

SN - 0031-8116

IS - 9

ER -