Skip to main content

Philosophizing out of bounds

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Williamson (2007, 2015).

  2. 2.

    I focus in the following on Machery’s ‘unreliability’ argument; he also uses arguments based on dogmatism and parochialism to support the same conclusions. However, most of my concerns about the former also apply to the latter.

  3. 3.

    Machery does say that judgments belonging to unreliable kinds may be used when said judgment is known to be an exception, but it’s unlikely that Weatherson’s controversial judgment meets that criterion.

  4. 4.

    Machery does make some moves in this vein—he writes that unusualness is only a problem when the accuracy of judgment depends on considering the unusual feature (thus making the process of adding two pink elephants to two pink elephants not unusual in the relevant sense), for instance. This move does not, however, defang the cases discussed above.

References

  1. Alexander, J., & Weinberg, J. (2014). The “unreliability” of epistemic intuitions. In E. Machery (Ed.), Current controversies in experimental philosophy (pp. 128–145). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Cappelen, H. (2012). Philosophy without intuitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Deutsch, M. (2015). The myth of the intuitive. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Machery, E. (2017). Philosophy within its proper bounds. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Nado, J. (2015). Intuition, philosophical theorising, and the threat of Scepticism. In E. Fischer & J. Collins (Eds.), Experimental philosophy, rationalism, and naturalism: Rethinking philosophical method (pp. 204–221). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nado, J. (2017). Knowledge is not enough. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 95(4), 658–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Uhlmann, E., Pizarro, D., Tannenbaum, D., & Ditto, P. (2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 476–491.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Weatherson, B. (2003). What good are counterexamples? Philosophical Studies, 115, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Weinberg, J. (2007). How to challenge intuitions empirically without risking skepticism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 31, 318–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Williamson, T. (2016). Philosophical criticisms of experimental philosophy. In J. Sytsma & W. Buckwalter (Eds.), A companion to experimental philosophy (pp. 22–35). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Nado.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nado, J. Philosophizing out of bounds. Philos Stud (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-020-01582-0

Download citation