The Validity of Thought Experiments as a Method of Philosophy

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Author

Department of Philosophy, humanities faculty, tarbiat modares university, tehran, Iran

10.48308/kj.2025.240440.1330

Abstract

Thought experiments have been used for different purposes in contemporary philosophy, such as epistemic, illustrative, and heuristic reasons. The epistemic function of thought experiments typically aims to elicit intuition-based judgments that can serve as evidence for the premises of arguments. Advocates for the use of thought experiments aim to demonstrate that the judgments they elicit often possess the same validity as those made in everyday life, an argument known as the Parity defense. The parity defense shows that both judgments use the same psychological capacity. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that these intuitions are unreliable and even if the parity defense is true, the validity of ordinary judgments themselves must be questioned. Here, besides categorizing different definitions of what we mean by the epistemic function of thought experiments, I will examine criticisms of the epistemic function of these intuitions to show that even if some are considerable, it cannot be concluded that the use of thought experiments must be set aside from philosophy.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Alexander, J., & Weinberg, J. M. (2007). Analytic Epistemology and Experimental Philosophy. Philosophy Compass, 2(1), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00048.x
Brown, J. R., & Fehige, Y. (2023). Thought Experiments. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/thought-experiment/
Knobe, J. M., & Nichols, S. (Eds.). (2008). Experimental philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Machery, E. (2011). THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS AND PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE. Metaphilosophy, 42(3), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2011.01700.x
Machery, E. (2017). Philosophy within its proper bounds (First edition). Oxford University Press.
Pölzler, T., & Paulo, N. (2024). Thought experiments and experimental ethics. Inquiry, 67(1), 355–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2021.1916218
Pust, J. (2024). Intuition. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/intuition/
Rosenqvist, S. (2020). Hedonistic act utilitarianism: Action guidance and moral intuitions. Department of Philosophy, Uppsala University.
Sorensen, R. A. (1998). Thought Experiments. Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
Stratton-Lake, P. (2020). Intuitionism in Ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/intuitionism-ethics/
Thomson, J. J. & The Hegeler Institute. (1976). Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem: Monist, 59(2), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist197659224
Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of philosophy. Blackwell.
Williamson, T. (2016). Philosophical Criticisms of Experimental Philosophy. In J. Sytsma & W. Buckwalter (Eds.), A Companion to Experimental Philosophy (1st ed., pp. 22–36). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118661666.ch2
Shenakht
Volume 18, Issue 1 - Serial Number 90
September 2025
Pages 101-121

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 25 June 2025
  • Revise Date: 21 July 2025
  • Accept Date: 20 August 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics