No hope for the Irrelevance Claim

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

    5 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Empirical findings about intuitions putatively cast doubt on the traditional methodology of philosophy. Herman Cappelen and Max Deutsch have argued that these methodological concerns are unmotivated as experimental findings about intuitions are irrelevant for assessments of the methodology of philosophy—I dub this the ‘Irrelevance Claim’. In this paper, I first explain that for Cappelen and Deutsch to vindicate the Irrelevance Claim from a forceful objection, their arguments have to establish that intuitions play no epistemically significant role whatsoever in philosophy—call this the ‘Orthogonality Claim’. I then argue that even under a charitable reading of their views Cappelen and Deutsch fail to establish the Orthogonality Claim. Lastly, I discuss empirical evidence that the Orthogonality Claim is false. The arguments in this paper will demonstrate that Cappelen and Deutsch cannot motivate the Irrelevance Claim and that their replies to recent experimental attacks on traditional methodology of philosophy do not succeed.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)3351-3371
    Number of pages21
    JournalPHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
    Volume177
    Issue number11
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2020

    Keywords

    • Evidence
    • Experimental philosophy
    • INTUITIONS
    • Intuition
    • KNOWLEDGE
    • Philosophical methodology

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'No hope for the Irrelevance Claim'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this