Experimental Philosophy

New *Interactive* Experimental Philosophy Video on YouTube

You all will probably remember the experimental film maker Ben Coonley, who was the creative force behind the YouTube video on the side-effect effect starring Eugene Mirman. Well, he's back, and this time he's actually managed to take it even further.

Focusing on some recent research on happiness and moral evaluations (which was inspired by Sven Nyholm's earlier finding), Ben has made af fully interactive YouTube video in which viewers can learn about experiemntal philosophy research on happiness while participating in a within-subjects version of the original study. That is really taking it to the next level. Check it out:

 

Nahmias Interview with 3:AM

Our own Eddy Nahmias has an illuminating  interview with 3:AM's Richard Marshall--who has been doing a number of really nice interviews as of late with a wide variety of philosophers.  So, when you're done reading the interview with Eddy, you should check out some of Marshall's other interviews for 3:AM as well!

Mele's Interview with 3:AM

Yet another interesting and illuminating interview by 3:AM's Richard Marshall.  This time, Al Mele talks about free will, self-deception, neuroscience, experimental philosophy and a number of other themes.  Check it out!

Joshua Knobe Interview at 3:AM Magazine

A funky little piece by Richard Marshall, if y'all haven't already noticed.

Nahmias, Neuroscience, and Free Will in the NYT

Congrats to our own Eddy Nahmias, who has an op-ed on neuroscience and free will in today's NYT Opinionator/The Stone entitled, "Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will?"   

X-Phi in Scientific American

There are two new x-phi related pieces in Scientific American.  The first is by Josh Knobe and is entitled, "Thought Experiments: Philosophers."  The second is by Shaun Nichols and is entitled, "Is Free Will and Illusion."   Needless to say, the field of experimental philosophy has come a long way!  

X-Phi in the Stanford Magazine

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! 

Wright in the News

Jen Wright's interesting research on the conservative/liberal divide was recently discussed in an article in The Statesman.  I am pleased to see that Jen has shed some important new light on Haidt's earlier findings.  I look forward to seeing more research on this front since I think it is especially important, socially speaking, given the ideological divisions that are becoming increasingly entrenched in politics these days.

NYT on X-Phi and the History of Philosophy

In a recent piece for the New York Times, Justin E. H. Smith discusses the many ways in which various figures throughout the history of philosophy have exhibited a broad curiousity about empirical questions.  He then concludes:

The new “experimental philosophy” movement is... returning to an earlier conception of the inseparability of philosophical reflection and scientific inquiry, though curiously “x-phi” advocates describe themselves as breaking with “traditional” philosophy, rather than as returning to it, which is what in fact they are doing.

In my view, what Smith says here is precisely right.  Experimental philosophy should never have been seen as a break with some conservative idea of 'traditional philosophy.'  Instead, the more accurate view would be that philosophy has been concerned throughout almost all of its history with questions about how ordinary people actually think and feel and that the experimental philosophy movement is simply seeking a return to this grand tradition.

I'd be curious to hear what others think about this issue, though.  Do others see experimental philosophy as a radical break with the past, or do you see it (as I do) more as a retro approach to the discipline?

Tamler Sommers on the Death of the X-Phi Debate

A recent issue of the Philosophers' Magazine included a special section on experimental philosophy. Just as you might expect, there were separate articles on the various different topics that experimental philosophers have investigated (consciousness, intentional action, gender, moral relativism). But then, the editors thought there should also be an article on the very idea of experimental philosophy and the controversy that this idea has engendered. To write this article, they commissioned Tamler Sommers. 

As Sommers explains in the text of his published piece, he had an incredibly difficult time trying to muster up anything interesting to say on the topic. 

I couldn’t do it. I could not get myself to write an essay about the general debate over experimental philosophy. At the time, I had no idea why it was so difficult, but I think I do now. Debates are interesting when there is more than one reasonable position to hold. A debate about whether a particular instance of hate speech should be protected by federal law might be interesting. A debate about the value of freedom of expression laws in general is not. On the question of the general value or viability of experimental philosophy, there is only one reasonable position. This makes it an exceptionally boring debate...

Ultimately, the conclusion Sommers reaches is that the only interesting questions here are about the individual topics that experimental philosophers discuss (consciousness, intentional action, and all the rest). There is just no philosophically interesting issue about whether experimental philosophy itself is a worthwhile field. 

Thoughts?