Description
This week we introduce the methodological concerns with the study of causation (and causal cognition in general). This is a very interesting chapter on philosophical methodology that has a wide impact on other fields of philosophy. I hope you enjoy reading it. For this week’s readings, please address the following problems in your discussions: What is the kind of philosophical intuition used in the so-called armchair philosophy? Do such intuitions help us find out the nature of causation? Why or why not? If not, then what kind of functions do intuitions have for us to understand causation? You may use some particular examples to illustrate. Woodward evaluated carefully the pros and cons of three methodological approaches in philosophy (and esp. in the study of causation): Intuitive method (armchair philosophy), Experimental philosophy (X-phil), and Empirical Research on Causation (ERC). For the first two methods, each has its virtues and limitations. Elaborte on what these virtues and limitations are. Does Woodward think that X-Phil is better than the Intuitive method, as some X-philosophers claimed? (Optional) You may use an example in another philosophical discipline (such as epistemology, p political philosophy, phil of language, or phil of mind) to illustrate how the intuitive method works in that discipline. You may also evaluate how well it works. Discussions are where our ideas ignite more ideas and new thoughts emerge. Please do your best to participate. ALl posts are due by Saturday night. You need to make at least one response to other posts.
