现实世界的案例对哲学家有什么用处?

Katherine Furman
{"title":"现实世界的案例对哲学家有什么用处?","authors":"Katherine Furman","doi":"10.3998/ERGO.1113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I provide a defence of real-world cases as a legitimate part of the philosopher’s toolkit, in addition to the austere thought experiments and fictional cases that are more commonly used. I argue that thought experiments are effective because they streamline out extraneous details that might distract the philosopher from the principle under investigation. But in doing so they run the risk of inadvertently removing relevant information, thus preventing the philosopher from latching on to salient philosophical relationships. Fictional cases operate as extended thought experiments—removing what is hopefully irrelevant, but potentially at the cost of information that the philosopher needs. Cases from the real world are thus the only place that we can be sure that nothing important hasn’t been inadvertently lost, and so they are philosophically important.","PeriodicalId":19494,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Use Are Real-World Cases for Philosophers?\",\"authors\":\"Katherine Furman\",\"doi\":\"10.3998/ERGO.1113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper I provide a defence of real-world cases as a legitimate part of the philosopher’s toolkit, in addition to the austere thought experiments and fictional cases that are more commonly used. I argue that thought experiments are effective because they streamline out extraneous details that might distract the philosopher from the principle under investigation. But in doing so they run the risk of inadvertently removing relevant information, thus preventing the philosopher from latching on to salient philosophical relationships. Fictional cases operate as extended thought experiments—removing what is hopefully irrelevant, but potentially at the cost of information that the philosopher needs. Cases from the real world are thus the only place that we can be sure that nothing important hasn’t been inadvertently lost, and so they are philosophically important.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19494,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Access Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Access Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3998/ERGO.1113\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3998/ERGO.1113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在这篇文章中,我为现实世界的案例提供了辩护,将其作为哲学家工具包的合法部分,而不是更常用的严肃的思想实验和虚构的案例。我认为思想实验是有效的,因为它们简化了可能分散哲学家对正在研究的原理的无关细节。但这样做的风险是,他们无意中删除了相关信息,从而使哲学家无法抓住突出的哲学关系。虚构的案例就像扩展的思想实验一样运作——移除希望无关的东西,但可能以哲学家需要的信息为代价。因此,现实世界中的案例是我们唯一可以确定的地方,没有什么重要的东西没有在不经意间丢失,所以它们在哲学上是重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What Use Are Real-World Cases for Philosophers?
In this paper I provide a defence of real-world cases as a legitimate part of the philosopher’s toolkit, in addition to the austere thought experiments and fictional cases that are more commonly used. I argue that thought experiments are effective because they streamline out extraneous details that might distract the philosopher from the principle under investigation. But in doing so they run the risk of inadvertently removing relevant information, thus preventing the philosopher from latching on to salient philosophical relationships. Fictional cases operate as extended thought experiments—removing what is hopefully irrelevant, but potentially at the cost of information that the philosopher needs. Cases from the real world are thus the only place that we can be sure that nothing important hasn’t been inadvertently lost, and so they are philosophically important.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信