Experimental Philos

@xphilosopher

Experimental philosophy: An interdisciplinary field that uses the collection of empirical data to shed light on philosophical issues.

Vrijeme pridruživanja: ožujak 2009.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @xphilosopher

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @xphilosopher

  1. Exciting new paper in experimental philosophy of causation. If C causes E, must it be that C either directly causes E or causes an intermediary that in turn causes E? The surprise answer is: no

    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    New paper on "Actual Causation and Compositionality" out now in Philosophy of Science:

    Poništi
  3. 29. sij

    New paper from philosopher Hanna Pickard argues that experimental philosophy research on causation and counterfactuals can help us understand what goes so wrong in people's ordinary judgments about rape

    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    25. sij

    Is there any decent advice out there for ECRs and PhDs who want to do x-phi but who find that their institution does not have any relevant researchers/research groups that can support/facilitate their experimental designs and data collection?

    Poništi
  5. 16. sij

    Maybe they think the essence of the sapling lies in its telos – the thing it is ultimately supposed to become On this view, the folk conception is a lot less like contemporary science and a lot more like Aristotle

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. 16. sij

    Take a sapling that will one day grow into an oak tree. It looks very different from a full-grown oak tree, but people still think it is an oak. Why? Traditional explanation: Hidden biological properties (e.g., oak DNA) But maybe that's not right...

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 16. sij

    Fascinating new experimental philosophy paper from Rose and Nichols argues that ordinary folk show a form "teleological essentialism."

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    13. sij

    Is the true self truly moral? Identity intuitions across domains of sociomoral reasoning and age "Moral norms are more central to identity than purely social-conventional norms and become relatively more central to identity in adulthood."

    Poništi
  9. 9. sij

    There has already been lots of research on ordinary intuitions about justice, but this paper takes a new approach. It looks not just at what people think is the best answer but what people think is the best *method*. Do people endorse the veil of ignorance?

    Poništi
  10. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    7. sij

    This is a cool result, and it fits a growing body of evidence that, by default, people consider possibilities that are both high in probability and high in value.

    Poništi
  11. 7. sij

    New study uses IAT to explore people's implicit understanding of free will. Regardless of what people say at an explicit, theoretical level, do they have an implicit commitment to the Strawsonian view?

    Poništi
  12. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    6. sij

    SEP: Moral Psychology: Empirical Approaches

    Poništi
  13. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    New paper on causal attributions. Shows that a surprising pattern of effects previously found for causal attributions is also found for responsibility attributions. And argues that this close correspondence calls out for explanation.

    Poništi
  14. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    5. sij

    We tend to see norm-violating rather than norm-conforming factors as the cause of an outcome. Cool experiment by -henna et al shows this is not related to social or moral cognition, and also applies to prospective outcomes: HT

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    3. sij

    Why is it okay to say: “cars are for driving” but not “cars are for parking”? You generally park cars just as often as you drive them. Joanna Korman and I studied these sentences — called teleological generics — in a paper now in press at Cogniton.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 31. pro 2019.
    Poništi
  17. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Is there a good recent survey (last year or two) of competing explanations of the side effect effect?

    Poništi
  18. 28. pro 2019.

    The difference between fields is striking: no one would think you could be a specialist in philosophy of physics without knowing what a second derivative is, but traditionally, people did think you could be a specialist in philosophy of psychology without knowing what a t-test is

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 28. pro 2019.

    Philosopher Mark Kalderon voicing an opinion I don't think I've heard before: That it doesn't make sense to specialize in philosophy of psychology while having almost no concrete understanding of stats. I'm curious what people think about this

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·