Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 477–499 | Cite as

Arguments over Intuitions?

  • Tomasz Wysocki


Deutsch 2010 (The Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1: 447–460) claims that hypothetical scenarios are evaluated using arguments, not intuitions, and therefore experiments on intuitions are philosophically inconsequential. Using the Gettier case as an example, he identifies three arguments that are supposed to point to the right response to the case. In the paper, I present the results of studies ran on Polish, Indian, Spanish, and American participants that suggest that there’s no deep difference between evaluating the Gettier case with intuitions and evaluating it with Deutsch’s arguments. Specifically, I argue that one would find these arguments persuasive if and only if one is already disposed to exhibit the relevant intuition.


Thought Experiment Performance Error Good Argument Knowledge Ascription Gettier Case 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I would especially like to thank Julia Staffel for her extensive advice and feedback. I also want to thank for very helpful discussion John Heil, Todd Jones, Ron Mallon, Jennifer Nagel, Howard Nye, Gillian Russell, Stephen Stich, Brian Talbot, two anonymous referees from this journal, and the audience members at the 2015 Pacific APA conference in Vancouver, the 2015 Buffalo Experimental Philosophy Conference, the Experimental Philosophy Conference in Bristol, 2013, and the Epistemology for the Rest of the World Conference in Tokyo, 2013. Finally, I also thank Dominik Dziedzic, Adrianna Senczyszyn, and Artur Tanona for help with the Polish translation, and Daniel Márquez and Louis Quero for help with the Spanish translation.


  1. Alexander, J., and J. Weinberg. 2007. Analytic epistemology and experimental philosophy. Philosophy Compass 2(1): 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bealer, G. 2000. Theory of the a priori. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 81: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bengson, J. (2013). Experimental Attacks on Intuitions and Answers. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LXXXVI(3): 495–532.Google Scholar
  4. BonJour, L. 1998. In defense of pure reason. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, J. 2012. Words, concepts and epistemology. In Knowledge ascriptions, eds. J. Brown, and M. Gerken, 31–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappelen, H. 2012. Philosophy without intuitions. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cappelen, H. (2014). X-Phi Without Intuitions? In A. Booth, & D. Rowbottom, Intuitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carey, S. 2009. The origins of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cullen, S. 2010. Survey-driven romanticism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1(2): 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deutsch, M. 2009. Experimental philosophy and the theory of reference. Mind & Language 24(4): 445–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ——— 2010. Intuitions, counter-examples, and experimental philosophy. The Review of Philosophy and Psychology1: 447–460. doi: 10.1007/s13164-010-0033-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ——— 2015. The myth of the intuitive. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devitt, M. 2006. Ignorance of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elga, A. (2007). Reflection and Disagreement. Nous, XLI(3): 478–502.Google Scholar
  15. Feldman, R. (2006). Epistemological Puzzles About Disagreement. In S. H. (edd.), Epistemology Futures (pp. 216–236). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Foley, R. (1998). Rationality and intellectual self-trust. In M. DePaul, & W. Ramsey, Rethinking Intuitions. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Goldman, A. 2007. Philosophical intuitions: their target, their source, and their epistemic status. Grazer Philosophische Studien 74: 1–26.Google Scholar
  18. ——— 2010. Philosophical naturalism and intuitional methodology. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 84(2): 115–150.Google Scholar
  19. Goldman, A., and J. Pust. 1998. Philosophical theory and intuitional evidence. In Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry, eds. M. DePaul, and W. Ramsey, 179–198. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  20. Gopnik, A., and E. Schwitzgebel. 1998. Whose concepts are they, anyway? The role of philosophical intuition in empirical psychology. In Rethinking intuition, eds. M. DePaul, and W. Ramsey, 75–91. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  21. Greene, J. 2003. From neural “is” to moral “ought”: what are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4: 847–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hales, S. 2006. Relativism and the foundations of philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hintikka, J. 1999. The emperor's new intuitions. Journal of Philosophy 96(3): 127–147.Google Scholar
  24. Horvath, J. 2010. How (not) to react to experimental philosophy. Philosophical Psychology 23(4): 447–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huemer, M. 2005. Ethical intuitionism. Palgrave Macmillan: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Katz, J. 1981. Language and other abstract objects. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  27. Kauppinen, A. 2007. The rise and fall of experimental philosophy. Philosophical Explorations 10(2): 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keil, F. 1989. Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Keil, F. (1994). Explanation, Association, and the Acquisition of Word Meaning. In L. Gleitman, & B. Landau, The Acquisition of the Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kelly, T. 2010. Peer disagreement and higher order evidence. In Social epistemology: essential readings, eds. A. Goldman, and D. Whitcomb, 183–217. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kornblith, H. 1998. The role of intuition in philosophical inquiry: an account with no unnatural ingredients. In Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry, eds. M. DePaul, and W. Ramsey, 129–141. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  32. Ludwig, K. 2007. The epistemology of thought experiments: first versus third person approaches. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 128–159.Google Scholar
  33. Machery, E. 2009. Doing without concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ——— 2010. Précis of doing without concepts. Philosophical Studies149(3): 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Machery, E., S. Stich, D. Rose, A. Chatterjee, K. Karasawa, N. Struchiner, et al. 2015. Gettier across cultures. Noûs. doi: 10.1111/nous.12110.Google Scholar
  36. Mallon, R. (forth.). Experimental Philosophy. In H. Cappelen, T. S. Gendler, & J. Hawthorne, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Medin, D., and M. Schaffer. 1978. Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review 85(3): 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Medin, D., E. Lynch, and K. Solomon. 2000. Are there kinds of concepts? Annual Review of Psychology 51: 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murphy, G., and D. Medin. 1985. The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review 92(3): 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nadelhoffer, T., and E. Nahmias. 2007. The past and future of experimental philosophy. Philosophical Explorations 10(2): 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nagel, J. 2007. Epistemic intuitions. Philosophy Compass 2(6): 792–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. ——— 2012a. Intuitions and experiments: a defense of the case method in epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research85(3): 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. ——— 2012b. Mindreading in gettier cases and skeptical pressure cases. In Knowledge ascriptions, eds. J. Brown, and M. Gerken, 171–191. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nagel, J., V. San Juan, and R. Mar. 2013. Lay denial of knowledge for justified true beliefs. Cognition 129(3): 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nosofsky, R. 1988. Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology 14(4): 700–708.Google Scholar
  46. Piccini, G., and S. Scott. 2006. Splitting concepts. Philosophy of Science 73: 390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Plantinga, A. 1993. Warrant and proper function. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pust, J. 2000. Intuitions as evidence. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Rosch, E. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. ——— 1978. Principles of categorization. In Cognition and categorization, eds. E. Rosch, and B. Lloyd, 189–206. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Rosch, E., and C. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8: 382–439 8: 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scholl, B. 2007. Object persistence in philosophy and psychology. Mind & Language 22(5): 563–591.Google Scholar
  53. Schulz, E., E. Cokely, Feltz, and Adam. 2011. Persistent bias in expert judgments about free will and moral responsibility: a test of the expertise defense. Consciousness and Cognition 20: 1722–1731.Google Scholar
  54. Schwitzgebel, E., and F. Cushman. 2012. Expertise in moral reasoning? Order effects on moral judgment in professional philosophers and non-philosophers. Mind and Language 27: 135–153.Google Scholar
  55. Seyedsayamdost, H. (forth.). On Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions: Failure of Replication. Episteme. 12(1): 95–116. Retrieved from
  56. Sloman, S. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 119(1): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith, E., and S. Sloman. 1994. Similarity-versus rule-based categorization. Memory & Cognition 22(4): 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sosa, E. 2007. Intuitions: Their Nature and Epistemic Efficacy. In Grazer Philosophische Studien. Philosophical Knowledge, eds. C. Beyer, and A. Burri, 51–67. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  59. ——— 2009. A Defense of the Use of Intuitions in Philosophy. In Stich and His Critics, eds. M. Bishop, and D. Murphy, 101–112. Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell.Google Scholar
  60. Starmans, C., and O. Friedman. 2012. The folk conception of knowledge. Cognition 124(3): 272–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Steup, M. 1996. An introduction to contemporary epistemology. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  62. Stich, S. 1988. Reflective equilibrium, analytic epistemology and the problem of cognitive diversity. Synthese 74(3): 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Talbot, B. 2013. Reforming intuition pumps: when are the old ways the best? Philosophical Studies 165(2): 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tobia, K., W. Buckwalter, and S. Stich. 2013a. Moral intuitions: are philosophers experts? Philosophical Psychology 26: 629–638.Google Scholar
  65. Tobia, K., G. Chapman, and S. Stich. 2013b. Cleanliness is next to morality, even for philosophers. Journal of Consciousness Studies 20: 195–204.Google Scholar
  66. Turri, J. 2013. A conspicuous art: putting gettier to the test. Philosophers’ Imprint 13(10): 1–16.Google Scholar
  67. Turri, J., W. Buckwalter, and P. Blouw. 2015. Knowledge and luck. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 22(2): 378–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tymoczko, T. 1979. The four-color problem and its philosophical significance. The Journal of Philosophy 76(2): 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weinberg, J., S. Nichols, and S. Stich. 2001. Normativity and epistemic intuitions. Philosophical Topics 29(1 & 2): 429–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weinberg, J., C. Gonnerman, C. Buckner, and J. Alexander. 2010. Are philosophers expert intuiters? Philosophical Psychology 23(3): 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weiskopf, D. 2009. The plurality of concepts. Synthese 169(1): 145–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Washington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations