Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:47:45.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philosophy and WEIRD intuition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2010

Stephen Stich
Stephen Stich
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1107. [email protected]://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~stich/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

From Plato to the present, philosophers have relied on intuitive judgments as evidence for or against philosophical theories. Most philosophers are WEIRD, highly educated, and male. The literature reviewed in the target article suggests that such people might have intuitions that differ from those of people in other groups. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that they do.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 2-3 , June 2010 , pp. 110 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

References

Abarbanell, L. & Hauser, M. (in press) Mayan morality: An exploration of permissible harms. Cognition.Google Scholar
Brandt, R. (1954) Hopi ethics: A theoretical analysis. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M., Carroll, C., Sytsma, J. & Machery, E. (2010) Cross-cultural semantics and the speaker's/semantic reference distinction. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Haslanger, S. (2008) Changing the ideology and culture of philosophy: Not by reason (alone). Hypatia 23(2):210–23.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. (2004) Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kyburg, H. (1961) Probability and the logic of rational belief. Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S. & Stich, S. (2004) Semantics, cross-cultural style. Cognition 92:B1–12.Google Scholar
Machery, E., Olivola, C. Y. & de Blanc, M. (2009) Linguistic and metalinguistic intuitions in the philosophy of language. Analysis 69:689–94.Google Scholar
Mallon, R., Machery, E., Nichols, S. & Stich, S. (2009) Against arguments from reference. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79(2):332–56.Google Scholar
Nichols, S., Stich, S. & Weinberg, J. (2003) Meta-skepticism: Meditations on ethno-epistemology. In: The skeptics, ed. Luper, S., pp. 227–47. Ashgate.Google Scholar
Plato, (1892) The Republic. In: The dialogues of Plato, vol. I, trans. Jowett, B.. Random House.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1980) Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3(3):417–57.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2009) The use of intuitions in philosophy. In: Stich and his critics, ed. Murphy, D. & Bishop, M., pp. 101–112. Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starmans, C. & Friedman, O. (2009) Is knowledge subjective? A sex difference in adults' epistemic intuitions. Poster presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Cognitive Development Society, October 16–17, 2009, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Stich, S. (2009) Reply to Sosa. In: Stich and his critics, ed. Murphy, D. & Bishop, M., pp. 228–36. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. (1976) Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. The Monist 59:204–17.Google Scholar
Weinberg, J., Nichols, S. & Stich, S. (2001) Normativity and epistemic intuitions. Philosophical Topics 29(1&2):429–60.Google Scholar