Stanford Magazine has a nice piece on experimental philosophy. One of the more interesting bits from the article is a quote from Allen Wood, who will apparently not be standing in line to purchase tickets for our bandwagon tour:
"That more people believe one thing over another, I don't think there is anything very deep to be learned that way," he says. "I'm afraid I don't think that experimental philosophy enables you to learn anything you didn't already know about philosophy, because it's very hard to devise experimental tests to verify claims that are philosophically interesting. Experimental philosophers tend to underestimate the difficulty of designing experiments and research programs. It's much easier to 'know' something than to verify it in a scientific manner. You're more likely to just confirm your own philosophical prejudices and presuppositions. I think a lot of it is false, misleading, pointless at best and maybe even harmful."
If nothing else, it is a bit comical that a non-experimental philosopher would charge us with not appreciating the difficulty of designing experiments and research programs! As a free will skeptic who both expected and wanted the data on folk intuitions about free to come out incompatibilist and yet whose name is on a series of papers arguing for natural compatibilism, I can at least say with confidence that not all experimental philosophers are simply fishing for evidence that confirm their own philosophical prejudices and presuppositions. But at least I can sleep easy knowing that "at best," our work may be pointless. That alone should dispell the myth that experimental philosophy isn't properly philosophical!