Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-dk7s8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-28T00:05:40.262Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SKEPTICISM ABOUT META-SKEPTICISM: MEDITATIONS ON EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2016

Michael Hannon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing on new empirical data, a group of experimental philosophers have argued that one of the most popular and influential forms of skepticism is much less interesting and much less worrisome than philosophers have thought. Contrary to this claim, I argue that this brand of skepticism remains as threatening as ever. My argument also reveals an important limitation of experimental philosophy and sheds light on the way professional philosophers should go about the business of doing philosophy.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 213 - 231
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, J. 2012. Experimental Philosophy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, J. and Weinberg, J. 2007. ‘Analytic Epistemology and Experimental Philosophy.’ Philosophy Compass, 2: 56–80.Google Scholar
Bealer, G. 1998. ‘Intuition and the Autonomy of Philosophy.’ In DePaul, M. and Ramsey, W. (eds), Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry, pp. 201–40. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
BonJour, L. 2010. ‘The Myth of Knowledge.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 24: 57–83.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. 1999. ‘Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 57–89.Google Scholar
Cullen, S. 2010. ‘Survey-Driven Romanticism.’ Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1: 275–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. 1999. ‘Introduction.’ In DeRose, K. and Warfield, T.A. (eds), Skepticism: A Contemporary Reader, pp. 1–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. 1995. ‘Solving the Skeptical Problem.’ Philosophical Review, 104: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, M. 2010. ‘Experimental Philosophy, Intuitions, and Counter-Examples.’ Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1: 447–60.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1970. ‘Epistemic Operators.’ Journal of Philosophy, 67: 1007–23.Google Scholar
Frederick, S. 2005. ‘Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making.’ Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19: 25–42.Google Scholar
Gettier, E. 1963. ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ Analysis, 23: 121–123.Google Scholar
Hales, S. 2006. Relativism and the Foundations of Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hannon, M. 2015. ‘The Universal Core of Knowledge.’ Synthese, 192: 769–86.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. 2004. Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. 1998. From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kauppinen, A. 2007. ‘The Rise and Fall of Experimental Philosophy.’ Philosophical Explorations, 10: 95–118.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2008. ‘Evidence: Fundamental Concepts and the Phenomenal Conception.’ Philosophy Compass, 3: 933–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, H. 2002. Knowledge and its Place in Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, H. 2007. ‘Naturalism and Intuitions.’ Grazer Philosophische Studien, 74: 27–49.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1983. Philosophical Papers: Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1996. ‘Elusive Knowledge.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74: 549–567.Google Scholar
Ludwig, K. 2007. ‘The Epistemology of Thought Experiments: First Person Versus Third Person Approaches.’ In French, P. A. and Wettstein, H. K. (eds), Midwest Studies in Philosophy, pp. 128–59. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S., and Stich, S. 2004. ‘Semantics, Cross-Cultural Style.’ Cognition, 92: 1–12.Google Scholar
Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S., and Stich, S. 2012. ‘If Folk Intuitions Vary, Then What?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 86: 618–35.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. 1993. Problems in Philosophy: The Limits of Inquiry. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mortensen, K. and Nagel, J. Forthcoming. ‘Armchair-Friendly Experimental Philosophy.’ In Sytsma, J. and Buckwalter, W. (eds), A Companion to Experimental Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nagel, J. 2010. ‘Knowledge Ascriptions and the Psychological Consequences of Thinking About Error.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 60: 286–306.Google Scholar
Nagel, J. 2012. ‘Mindreading in Gettier Cases and Skeptical Pressure Cases.’ In Brown, J. and Gerken, M. (eds), Knowledge Ascriptions, pp. 171–191. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, J., San Juan, V., and Mar, R. 2013. ‘Authentic Gettier Cases: A Reply to Starmans and Friedman.’ Cognition, 129: 666–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, S., Stich, S., and Weinberg, J. 2012. ‘Meta-Skepticism: Meditations in Ethno-Epistemology.’ In Stich, S. (ed.), Knowledge, Rationality, and Morality, 1978–2010, pp. 224–6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. 1996. ‘Contextualist Solutions to Scepticism.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 96: 317–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, E., Cokely, E. T., and Feltz, A. 2011. ‘Persistent Bias in Expert Judgments about Free Will and Moral Responsibility: A Test of the Expertise Defense.’ Consciousness and Cognition, 20: 1722–31.Google Scholar
Schwitzgebel, E. and Cushman, F. 2012. ‘Expertise in Moral Reasoning? Order Effects on Moral Judgment in Professional Philosophers and Non-Philosophers.’ Mind and Language, 27: 135–53.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. 1991. Knowledge in Perspective: Selected Essays in Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. 2005. Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stich, S. and Weinberg, J. 2001. ‘Jackson's Empirical Assumptions.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62: 637–43.Google Scholar
Stroud, B. 1984. The Significance of Philosophical Skepticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. J. 1985. ‘The Trolley Problem.’ Yale Law Journal, 94: 1395–415.Google Scholar
Turri, J. 2015. ‘Skeptical Appeal: The Source-Content Bias.’ Cognitive Science, 39: 307–24.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, P. 1997. ‘Materialism and the Psychological-Continuity Account of Personal Identity.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 11: 305–19.Google Scholar
Weinberg, J. and Alexander, J. 2014. ‘The Challenge of Sticking with Intuitions through Thick and Thin.’ In Booth, A. and Rowbottom, D. (eds), Intuitions, pp. 187–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, B. 1973. Problems of the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2005. ‘Contextualism, Subject-Sensitive Invariantism and Knowledge of Knowledge.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 55: 213–35.Google Scholar