The field of experimental philosophy has received considerable attention, essentially for producing results that seem highly counter-intuitive and at the same time question some of the fundamental methods used in philosophy. A substantial part of this attention has focused on the role of intuitions in philosophical methodology. One of the major contributions of experimental philosophy on this topic has been concrete evidence in support of intuitional diversity; the idea that intuitions vary systematically depending on variables such as ethnicity, socioeconomic background, or gender. Because of the important implications, these findings have been the subject of extensive debate. Despite the seeming significance of the findings and despite all the debates that the experimental philosophy movement has prompted, what has not been examined systematically is the reproducibility of the results. Instead, the reported findings have been simply accepted as established facts. We set out to replicate a wide range of experiments and surprisingly failed to reproduce many of the reported findings, some of which are from the most cited and attention grabbing papers of the field. We draw two conclusions from our findings. The first is that the instability of intuitions has been exaggerated by experimental philosophers. Intuitions appear to be more uniform across different demographic groups. The argument that intuitions need to be discarded because they depend on arbitrary factors such as ethnicity, socioeconomic background, or gender does not seem tenable anymore. The second conclusion is that experimental philosophy needs a better system to ensure the reproducibility of published findings. The current research-publication system of various empirical fields, especially those employing statistical methods, leads to an overproduction of false-positive findings in the published literature. Unless changes are made to the current research-publication system, this overproduction is likely to continue, in experimental philosophy as well as other disciplines.

Loin de faire seulement l'apologie des mœurs licencieuses, les romanciers libertins sont au XVIIIe siècle les artisans d'une rencontre inédite entre philosophie et la littérature. Ils sont à l'origine d'un dispositif original tant philosophique que littéraire par lequel la fiction pense et donne à penser. De Sylphe de Crébillon (1730) à I' Histoire de Juliette de Sade (1797), la grande hétérogénéité du corpus des romans libertins a pour point commun une oscillation caractéristique entre des scènes érotiques et des débats philosophiques. Plus qu'une simple réécriture de thèses philosophiques, les romans libertins proposent une manière proprement littéraire de philosopher. En déplaçant la philosophie dans le boudoir, ils offrent une expérience qui marie l'esprit et le corps, la théorie et la pratique. / Libertine novels are not only pornography. During the 18th century, they are at the root of a philosophical and literary device, where fiction reflects and inspires reflection. Although the body of Libertine novels from Crébillon's Sylphe ( 1730) to Sade's Juliette ( 1797) is very diverse, the scam that runs through it is a distinctive oscillation between erotic scenes and philosophical debates. Rather than rewriting philosophical theories, the Libertine novels offer a literary way to philophize. Those novels offer experiences to the reader. Shilling philosophy towards the “boudoir”, the Libertine novel reconcile body and mind, theory and practice.