How can an experiment which occurs only in thought lead to new and accurate
conclusions about the world beyond thought? What makes thought experiments relevant
to the domains they are designed to explore?
One answer is that successful thought experiments are grounded. Explaining the
nature of this grounding relationship, especially as it applies to ethics, is the main task of
this dissertation.
A thought experiment is an experiment that occurs in thought. The "thought"
label distinguishes it from an ordinary physical experiment, while the "experiment" label
distinguishes it from other types of merely analogical, conjectural, or hypothetical
reasoning. Many of the components that are necessary for a successful physical
experiment are also necessary for a successful thought experiment. A thought
experiment, like a physical experiment, must isolate and vary variables in order to answer
a question within a given theoretical context. The result of the experiment has
repercussions for its theoretical context.
The grounding relationship holds between the components of the thought
experiment and the theoretical context of the thought experiment. In order for the
thought experiment to be successful, both the experimental set-up and our responses to it
need to be grounded in the thought experiment's theoretical context.
An experimental set-up will be grounded whenever it meets the following
conditions. The concepts used must be defined normally, dependent and independent
variables must be isolated and relevantly related, and the propositions of the thought
experiment (excepting those describing extraneous particulars) must be relevantly related
to the given theoretical context and the question under examination.
Grounding responses to thought experiments will then be largely a matter of
anticipating and disarming distorting influences. Factors influencing responses include
the individual's knowledge of the theoretical context, the state of development of that
context, the nature of the presentation of the thought experiment, and subjective filters.
It is sometimes difficult to ascertain whether a thought experiment in ethics is
grounded. This is largely due to the nature of the theoretical context of thought
experiments in ethics. In order to assess the relationship of thought experiments in ethics
to their theoretical context, I advocate employing a contextualist methodology involving
the process of wide reflective equilibrium. While contextualists use this approach to
arrive at considered judgements relating to specific ethical problems, I show that wide
reflective equilibrium can also be used to examine the grounding of thought experiments.
I conclude the dissertation with an examination of the relationship of thought
experiments to computer simulations, a study of various common thought experiment
distortions, and some tests and methods designed to aid constructing successful thought
experiments. / Arts, Faculty of / Philosophy, Department of / Graduate
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UBC/oai:circle.library.ubc.ca:2429/9907 |
| Date | 05 1900 |
| Creators | Harland, Anne |
| Source Sets | University of British Columbia |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, Thesis/Dissertation |
| Format | 11040396 bytes, application/pdf |
| Rights | For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use. |
Page generated in 0.0143 seconds