Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:31:11.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Thought Experiments: Is There More to the Argument?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

John D. Norton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Thought experiments in science are merely picturesque argumentation. I support this view in various ways, including the claim that it follows from the fact that thought experiments can err but can still be used reliably. The view is defended against alternatives proposed by my cosymposiasts.

Type
The Epistemology of thought Experiments
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers , December 2004 , pp. 1139 - 1151
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

My thanks to my cosymposiasts, Tamar Gendler, James McAllister, and especially Jim Brown for years of stimulating discussion.

References

Bohm, D. ([1951] 1989), Quantum Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Reprinted Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Brown, James Robert (1991), The Laboratory of the Mind: Thought Experiments in the Natural Sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, James Robert (1993a), “Why Empiricism Won’t Work”, in Hull, Forbes, and Okruhlik 1993, 271–279.Google Scholar
Brown, James Robert (1993b), “Author’s Response” (to Norton 1993), Metascience, 3 (new series): 38–40.Google Scholar
Brown, James Robert (2004a), “Peeking into Plato’s Heaven”, Peeking into Plato’s Heaven 71 (Proceedings): 1126–1138.Google Scholar
Brown, James Robert (2004b), “Why Thought Experiments Transcend Experience”, in Hitchcock, Christopher (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell, 23–43.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert (1911), “Zum ehrenfestschen Paradoxon”, Zum ehrenfestschen Paradoxon 12:509–510.Google Scholar
Gendler, Tamar Szabó (1998), “Galileo and the Indispensibility of Scientific Thought Experiment”, Galileo and the Indispensibility of Scientific Thought Experiment 49(3): 397–424Google Scholar
Horowitz, Tamara, and Massey, Gerald J. (eds.) (1991), Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Hull, David, Forbes, Micky, and Okruhlik, Kathleen (eds.) (1993), PSA 1992, Vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. ([1964] 1977), “A Function for Thought Experiments,” in L’aventure de la science: Mélanges Alexandre Koyré, Vol. 2, Paris: Hermann, 307–334. Reprinted in The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 240–265.Google Scholar
McAllister, James (1996), “The Evidential Significance of Thought Experiment in Science”, The Evidential Significance of Thought Experiment in Science 27:233–250.Google Scholar
Nersessian, Nancy (1993), “In the Theoretician’s Laboratory: Thought Experimenting as Mental Modeling”, in Hull, Forbes, and Okruhlik 1993, 291–301.Google Scholar
Norton, John D. (1991), “Thought Experiments in Einstein’s Work”, in Horowitz and Massey 1991, 129–148.Google Scholar
Norton, John D. (1993), “Seeing the Laws of Nature” (review of Brown 1991), Metascience 3 (new series): 33–38.Google Scholar
Norton, John D. (1996), “Are Thought Experiments Just What You Thought?”, Are Thought Experiments Just What You Thought? 26(3): 333–366.Google Scholar
Norton, John D. (2004), “Why Thought Experiments Do Not Transcend Empiricism”, in Hitchcock, Christopher (ed.), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell, 44–66.Google Scholar
Palmieri, Paolo (2003), “Mental Models in Galileo’s Early Mathematization of Nature”, Mental Models in Galileo’s Early Mathematization of Nature 34(2): 229–264.Google Scholar
Linnaeus, C. (1786), A Dissertation on the Sexes of Plants. Translated by James Edward Smith. London.Google Scholar