Philosophical Studies

, Volume 140, Issue 1, pp 19–46 | Cite as

Empirical metaphysics: the role of intuitions about possible cases in philosophy



Frank Jackson has argued that only if we have a priori knowledge of the extension-fixers for many of our terms can we vindicate the methodological practice of relying on intuitions to decide between philosophical theories. While there has been much discussion of Jackson’s claim that we have such knowledge, there has been comparatively little discussion of this most powerful argument for that claim. Here I defend an alternative explanation of our intuitions about possible cases, one that does not rely on a priori extension-fixers. This alternative explanation provides a vindication of our reliance on intuitions, while blocking Jackson’s abductive argument for a priori semantic knowledge. In brief, I argue that we should regard our armchair intuitions as providing an important, a priori source of evidence for hypotheses about the contents of our implicit referential policies with regard to our terms. But all such hypotheses have a potential falsifier that is only discoverable empirically. In other words, gold-standard evidence for such hypotheses is always empirical.


Intuition A priori knowledge Reference Two-dimensional semantics Philosophical method 


  1. Bigelow, J. & Laura S. (forthcoming). Jackson’s classical model of meaning. In I. Ravenscroft (Ed.), Minds, worlds, and conditionals: themes from frank jackson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Block, N., & Stalnaker, R. (1999). Conceptual analysis and the explanatory gap. Philosophical Review, 108, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braddon-Mitchell, D. (2004). Master’s of our meanings. Philosophical Studies, 118, 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrne, A., & Pryor, J. (2006). Bad intensions. In M. Garcia-Carpintero & J. Macia (Eds.), Two-dimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chalmers, D. (2002a). Consciousness and its place in nature. In D. Chalmers (Ed.), Philosophy of mind: classical and contemporary readings, (pp. 247–72). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chalmers, D. (2002b). On sense and intension. Philosophical Perspectives, 16, 135–182.Google Scholar
  7. Chalmers, D. (2004). Two-dimensional semantics. Philosophical Studies, 118, 153–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chalmers, D. (2006). The foundations of two-dimensional semantics. In M. Garcia-Carpintero & J. Macia (Eds.), Two-dimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dowell, J. L. (2006). The physical: empirical, not metaphysical. Philosophical Studies, 131, 25–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dowell, J. L. (2008). Serious metaphysics and the vindication of reductions. Philosophical Studies. doi:10.1007/s11098-007-9104-1.
  11. Edgington, D. (2006). Conditionals. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
  12. Frankfurt, H. (1969). Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. Journal of Philosophy, 66, 829–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gettier, E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23, 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garcia-Carpintero, M., & Macia, J. (2006). Two-dimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Henderson, D., & Horgan, T. (2001). The a priori isn’t all that it is cracked up to be, but it is something. Philosophical Topics, 29, 219–250.Google Scholar
  16. Jackson, F. (1998a). From metaphysics to ethic: a defense of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, F. (1998b). Reference and description revisited. Philosophical Perspectives, 12, 201–218.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, F. (2001). Locke-ing onto content. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 49, 127–143.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, F., & Chalmers, D. (2001). Conceptual analysis and reductive explanation. Philosophical Review, 110, 315–361.Google Scholar
  20. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. McLaughlin, B. (2005). A priori versus a posteriori physicalism. In C. Nimtz & A. Beckermann (Eds.), Philosophy-science scientific-philosophy, main lectures and colloquia of GAP 5, fifth international congress of the society for analytical philosophy (pp. 267–285). Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
  22. Salmon, W. (1993). Causality: production and propagation. In E. Sosa & M. Tooley (Eds.), Causation (pp. 154–171). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Soames, S. (2005). Reference and description: the case against two-dimensionalism. Princeton: Princeton.Google Scholar
  24. Stalnaker, R. (1987). Inquiry. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Stalnaker, R. (2003). On considering a possible world as actual. In R. Stalnaker (Ed.), Ways a world might be (pp. 188–200). Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thomson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94, 1395–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weatherson, B. (2003). What good are counterexamples? Philosophical Studies, 115, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilson, J. (2006). On characterizing the physical. Philosophical Studies, 131, 61–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Witmer, G. (forthcoming). Necessity, identity, and a priori access. Philosophical Topics.Google Scholar
  30. Yablo, S. (2000). Textbook kripkeanism and the open texture of concepts. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 81, 98–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yablo, S. (2005). No fool’s gold. In M. Garcia-Carpintero & J. Macia (Eds.), Two-dimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations