Why the Method of Cases Doesn’t Work

  • Christopher SuhlerEmail author


In recent years, there has been increasing discussion of whether philosophy actually makes progress. This discussion has been prompted, in no small part, by the depth and persistence of disagreement among philosophers on virtually every major theoretical issue in the field. In this paper, I examine the role that the Method of Cases (MoC) – the widespread philosophical method of testing and revising theories by comparing their verdicts against our intuitions in particular cases – plays in creating and sustaining theoretical disagreements in philosophy. Drawing on work from cognitive psychology, I argue that there is a fundamental incompatibility between (a) the structure of the theories that philosophers seek to construct using the MoC and (b) the structure of the concepts on which our case-specific intuitions are based. This incompatibility renders MoC-based philosophical theorizing unable ever to succeed by the very standards of adequacy that it sets for itself. And this, in turn, helps to explain the depth and persistence of theoretical disagreements – and, in certain ways, the lack of progress – in the many areas of philosophy where the MoC plays an important role.


Method of cases Intuitions Concepts Counterexamples Philosophical methodology Philosophical progress Metaphilosophy 



I am grateful to the editors and three anonymous referees at The Review of Philosophy and Psychology for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Precursors to this paper were presented at the 2017 Central Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Yale-NUS College, and Nanyang Technological University; thanks to the audiences on each of those occasions for useful discussion. Special thanks to Liam Kavanagh for detailed feedback on a previous draft and for a number of helpful conversations on this topic.

This work was supported by a grant from the Nanyang Technological University College of Humanities, Arts, & Social Sciences (project M4081899.100).


  1. Allen, C. 2017. On (not) defining cognition. Synthese 194 (11): 4233–4249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andow, J. 2015. How distinctive is philosophers’ intuition talk? Metaphilosophy 46 (4–5): 515–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashton, Z., and M. Mizrahi. 2018. Intuition talk is not methodologically cheap: Empirically testing the “received wisdom” about armchair philosophy. Erkenntnis 83 (3): 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baz, A. 2015. Questioning the method of cases fundamentally—Reply to Deutsch. Inquiry 58 (7–8): 895–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baz, A. 2016a. Recent attempts to defend the philosophical method of cases and the linguistic (re)turn. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (1): 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baz, A. 2016b. On going (and getting) nowhere with our words: New skepticism about the philosophical method of cases. Philosophical Psychology 29 (1): 64–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baz, A. 2017. The crisis of method in contemporary analytic philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bealer, G. 2000. A theory of the a priori. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 81 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackford, R., and D. Broderick, eds. 2017. Philosophy’s future: The problem of philosophical Progress. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Brennan, J. 2010. Scepticism about philosophy. Ratio 23 (1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cappelen, H. 2012. Philosophy without intuitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chalmers, D.J. 2014. Intuitions in philosophy: A minimal defense. Philosophical Studies 171 (3): 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chalmers, D.J. 2015. Why Isn’t there more Progress in philosophy? Philosophy 90 (1): 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christensen, D. 2007. Epistemology of disagreement: The good news. Philosophical Review 116 (2): 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark, A., and D. Chalmers. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58 (1): 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Climenhaga, N. 2018. Intuitions are used as evidence in philosophy. Mind 127 (505): 69–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daly, C. 2017. Persistent philosophical disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 117 (1): 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dennett, D. 1984. Elbow room: The varieties of free will worth wanting. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dennett, D. 1991. Consciousness explained. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  20. Deutsch, M. 2010. Intuitions, counter-examples, and experimental philosophy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (3): 447–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deutsch, M. 2015. The myth of the intuitive. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frances, B. 2017. Extensive philosophical agreement and Progress. Metaphilosophy 48 (1–2): 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frankfurt, H.G. 1969. Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. The Journal of Philosophy 66 (23): 829–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fumerton, R. 2010. You Can’t trust a philosopher. In Disagreement, ed. R. Feldman and T.A. Warfield, 91–111. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gettier, E.L. 1963. Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis 23 (6): 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldstone, R.L., A. Kersten, and P.F. Carvalho. 2017. Categorization and concepts. In Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience, fourth edition, volume three: Language & thought, ed. J. Wixted, 275–317. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Goodman, N. 1955. Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jackson, F. 1986. What Mary Didn’t know. The Journal of Philosophy 83 (5): 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jackson, F. 2009. Thought experiments and possibilities. Analysis 69 (1): 100–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kavanagh, L., and Suhler, C. 2015. What is the role of conceptual analysis in cognitive science? In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds. Noelle, D.C., Dale, R., Warlaumont, A.S., Yoshimi, J., Matlock, T., Jennings, C.D., and Maglio, P.P., 1057–1062. Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  31. Kornblith, H. 2013. Is philosophical knowledge possible? In Disagreement and skepticism, ed. D.E. Machuca, 260–276. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Kripke, S.A. 1980. Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kuntz, J.R., and J.R.C. Kuntz. 2011. Surveying philosophers about philosophical intuition. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2 (4): 643–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lakatos, I. 1976. Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Machery, E. 2009. Doing without concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Machery, E. 2012. Why I stopped worrying about the definition of life... And why you should as well. Synthese 185 (1): 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Machery, E. 2017. Philosophy within its proper bounds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Machery, E., R. Mallon, S. Nichols, and S.P. Stich. 2004. Semantics, cross-cultural style. Cognition 92 (3): B1–B12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mervis, C.B., and E. Rosch. 1981. Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology 32 (1): 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mizrahi, M. 2014. Does the method of cases rest on a mistake? Review of Philosophy and Psychology 5 (2): 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mizrahi, M. 2015. Don’t believe the hype: Why should philosophical theories yield to intuitions? Teorema: Revista Internacional de Filosofía 34 (3): 141–158.Google Scholar
  42. Murphy, G.L. 2002. The big book of concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nado, J. 2016. The intuition deniers. Philosophical Studies 173 (3): 781–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nagel, J. 2012. Intuitions and experiments: A defense of the case method in epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (3): 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nagel, J. 2013. Defending the evidential value of epistemic intuitions: A reply to Stich. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (1): 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parfit, D. 2011. On What Matters (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pereboom, D. 2001. Living without free will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pereboom, D. 2014. Free will, agency, and meaning in life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pust, J. 2001. Against Explanationist skepticism regarding philosophical intuitions. Philosophical Studies 106 (3): 227–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rawls, J. 1951. Outline of a decision procedure for ethics. The Philosophical Review 60 (2): 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rosch, E.H. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4 (3): 328–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology 7 (4): 532–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rosch, E., and C.B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7 (4): 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Searle, J. 1980. Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 417–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shand, J. 2017. Philosophy makes no Progress, so what is the point of it? Metaphilosophy 48 (3): 284–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith, E.E., and D.L. Medin. 1981. Categories and concepts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Snooks, R.J. 2006. Another scientific practice separating chemistry from physics: Thought experiments. Foundations of Chemistry 8 (3): 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stich, S. 1988. Reflective equilibrium, analytic epistemology and the problem of cognitive diversity. Synthese 74 (3): 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stich, S. 2013. Do different groups have different epistemic intuitions? A reply to Jennifer Nagel. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (1): 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stoljar, D. 2017. Philosophical progress: In defence of a reasonable optimism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Swain, S., A. Joshua, and J.M. Weinberg. 2008. The instability of philosophical intuitions: Running hot and cold on Truetemp. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76 (1): 138–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Swan, L.S. 2009. Synthesizing insight: Artificial life as thought experimentation in biology. Biology and Philosophy 24 (5): 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sytsma, J. 2010. The proper province of philosophy: Conceptual analysis and empirical investigation. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1: 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Turri, J., and O. Friedman. 2014. Winners and losers in the folk epistemology of lotteries. In Advances in experimental epistemology, ed. J. Beebe, 45–69. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  66. Weatherson, B. 2003. What good are counterexamples? Philosophical Studies 115(1): 1–31.Google Scholar
  67. Weinberg, J.M. 2014. Cappelen between rock and a hard place. Philosophical Studies 171 (3): 545–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weinberg, J.M., S. Nichols, and S. Stich. 2001. Normativity and epistemic intuitions. Philosophical Topics 29 (1/2): 429–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Williamson, T. 2007. The philosophy of philosophy. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilson, J. 2017. Three barriers to Progress in philosophy. In Philosophy’s future: The problem of philosophical Progress, ed. R. Blackford and D. Broderick, 91–104. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wittgenstein, L. 1953/2009. Philosophical investigations (rev. 4th ed.). Trans. G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker, and J. Schulte. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations