Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T03:40:27.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peeking into Plato's Heaven

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

James Robert Brown
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Examples of classic thought experiments are presented and some morals drawn. The views of my fellow symposiasts, Tamar Gendler, John Norton, and James McAllister, are evaluated. An account of thought experiments along a priori and Platonistic lines is given. I also cite the related example of proving theorems in mathematics with pictures and diagrams. To illustrate the power of these methods, a possible refutation of the continuum hypothesis using a thought experiment is sketched.

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. 1126 - 1138
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

‡

Acknowledgement. I'm grateful to my fellow symposiasts, Tamar Szabó Gendler, James McAllister, and especially John Norton who organized the session. I have benefited enormously from discussions with him on these issues over the years and on this paper in particular. I'm also very glad to thank my daughter, Elizabeth, who provided some of the drawings.

References

Brown, James Robert (1986), “Thought Experiments Since the Scientific Revolution”, Thought Experiments Since the Scientific Revolution 1(1): 119–128.Google Scholar
Brown, James Robert (1991), 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, David, Forbes, Micky, and Okruhlik, Kathleen (eds.), PSA 1992, Vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Brown, James Robert (1993b), “Author’s Response” (to Norton 1993), Metascience 3 (new series): 38–40.Google Scholar
Brown, James Robert (1999), Philosophy of Mathematics: An Introduction to the World of Proofs and Pictures. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, James Robert (2004), “Why Thought Experiments Transcend Experience”, in Hitchcock, Christopher (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell, 23–43.Google Scholar
Freiling, Christopher (1986), “Axioms of Symmetry: Throwing Darts at the Real Number Line”, Axioms of Symmetry: Throwing Darts at the Real Number Line 51(1): 190–200.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo ([1638] 1974), Two New Sciences. Translated from the Discoursi by Stillman Drake. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Gendler, Tamar Szabó (1998), “Galileo and the Indispensibility of Scientific Thought Experiment”, Galileo and the Indispensibility of Scientific Thought Experiment 49(3): 397–424.Google Scholar
Gendler, Tamar Szabó (2004), “Thought Experiments Rethought—and Reperceived” Philosophy of Science 71 (Proceedings): 1152–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, Tamara, and Massey, Gerald J. (eds.) (1991), Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Koyré, Alexandre ([1960] 1968), “Galileo’s Treatise De motu gravium: The Use and Abuse of Imaginary Experiment”, in Koyré, Alexandre (ed.) Metaphysics and Measurement. London: Chapman and Hall. Originally published in Revue d’histoire des sciences 13:197–245.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. ([1964] 1977), “A Function for Thought Experiments,” 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
Mach, Ernst ([1933] 1960), The Science of Mechanics. Translated by McCormack, Thomas J.. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
McAllister, James (1996), “The Evidential Significance of Thought Experiments in Science”, The Evidential Significance of Thought Experiments in Science 27(2): 233–250.Google Scholar
McAllister, James (2004), “Thought Experiments and the Belief in Phenomena” Philosophy of Science 71 (Proceedings): 1164–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, Isaac ([1726] 1999), Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Translated by Cohen, I. Bernard et al. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Norton, John (1991), “Thought Experiments in Einstein’s Work”, in Horowitz and Massey 1991, 129–149.Google Scholar
Norton, John (1993), “Seeing the Laws of Nature” (review of Brown 1991), Metascience 3(new series): 33–38.Google Scholar
Norton, John (1996), “Are Thought Experiments Just What You Always Thought?”, Are Thought Experiments Just What You Always Thought? 26(3): 333–366.Google Scholar
Norton, John (2004a), “On Thought Experiments: Is There More to the Argument?” Philosophy of Science 71 (Proceedings): 1139–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, John (2004b), “Why Thought Experiments Do Not Transcend Empiricism”, in Hitchcock, Christopher (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell, 44–66.Google Scholar
Tooley, Michael (1977), “The Nature of Laws,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7:667–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar