Thought experiments: identity and efficiency issues

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article analyzes two problems related to thought experiments based on a study of the contemporary philosophical discussion about the nature and structure of thought experiments: the problem of identity and the problem of effectiveness. The first problem pertains to establishing the essence of the thought experiment as a philosophical method. The second concerns the disagreements that arise regarding the effectiveness of thought experiments. The history of the development of the concept of thought experiments is briefly reviewed. Special attention is given to contemporary positions regarding the nature of thought experiments, ranging from Platonist to empiricist approaches, as well as various classifications discussed in the modern discourse. Current views on the main mechanism of thought experiments—imagining—and on the structure and inner workings of thought experiments are analyzed. The analysis is conducted through historical-philosophical examination of contemporary studies specifically dedicated to thought experiments, comparing positions, and conducting conceptual analysis of the idea of a thought experiment. The study places particular emphasis on the question of the effectiveness of thought experiments as a philosophical method. It shows that the ways of determining effectiveness for thought experiments and ordinary arguments differ. Accepting the conclusions drawn allows for a more effective critique of thought experiments, aimed not at debunking them but at improving them. The discussed problems are not critical for thought experiments as a method. As there is a lack of studies in contemporary domestic literature specifically devoted to the problematization of the nature and structure of thought experiments, the conclusions drawn also help to actualize the discussion. As a result of the analysis, the author arrives at two main conclusions regarding the problems considered. First, various interpretations of the nature of thought experiments can be viewed as different classifications of thought experiments or as emphasizing the significance of different aspects of thought experiments. In this view, the identity problem can largely be reduced to the effectiveness problem. Second, the effectiveness problem of thought experiments is not an argument against thought experiments but a specific practical task associated with the development of more refined ways of conducting thought experiments. Among the aspects of thought experiments that require improvement, aspects such as accuracy, consistency, relevance, representativeness, and others are indicated.

References

  1. Штофф В.А. Моделирование и философия. М.: Наука, 1966. 302 с.
  2. Деннет Д. Насосы интуиции и другие инструменты мышления / Пер. с англ. З. Мамедьярова, Е. Фоменко. М.: АСТ: CORPUS, 2019. 576 с.
  3. Schick T. Doing Philosophy: An Introduction Through Thought Experiments. 6th ed. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019. 672 p.
  4. Gendler T.S. Thought Experiment: On the Power and Limits of Imaginary Cases. N.Y.; L.: Garland Publishing, 2000. 258 p.
  5. Галилей Г. Беседы и математические доказательства, касающиеся двух новых областей науки // Галилей Г. Избранные труды: В 2 т. / Отв. ред. В.К. Абанькин. Т. 2. М.: Наука, 1964. С. 7-634.
  6. Miščević N. Thought Experiments. Cham: Springer, 2021. 130 p.
  7. Thagard P. Thought Experiments Considered Harmful // Perspectives on Science. 2014. Vol. 22. № 2. P. 288-305.
  8. Филатов В.П. Мысленные эксперименты в науке и философии // Эпистемология & философия науки. 2010. Т. 25. № 3. С. 5-15.
  9. Stuart M.T., Fehige Y., Brown J.R. Thought Experiments: State of the Art // The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments / Ed. by M.T. Stuart, Y. Fehige, J.R. Brown. N.Y.: Routledge, 2018. P. 1-28.
  10. Roux S. Introduction: The Emergence of the Notion of Thought Experiments // Thought Experiments in Methodological and Historical Contexts / Ed. by K. Ierodiakonou, S. Roux. Leiden: Brill, 2011. P. 1-33.
  11. Buzzoni M. Kantian Accounts of Thought Experiments // The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments / Ed. by M.T. Stuart, Y. Fehige, J.R. Brown. N.Y.: Routledge, 2018. P. 327-341.
  12. Мах Э. Умственный эксперимент // Мах Э. Познание и заблуждение: Очерки по психологии исследования / Пер. с нем. Г. Котляр. М.: БИНОМ. Лаборатория знаний, 2014. С. 192-207.
  13. Sorensen R.A. Thought Experiments. N.Y.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. 318 p.
  14. Эйнштейн А., Инфельд Л. Эволюция физики: Развитие идей от первоначальных понятий до теории относительности и квантов / Пер. с англ. и вступ. ст. С.Г. Суворова. М.: Гос. изд-во техн.-теорет. лит., 1956. 279 с.
  15. Kuhn T.S. A Function for Thought Experiments // The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. P. 240-265.
  16. Norton J.D. Thought Experiments in Einstein's Work // Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy / Ed. by T. Horowitz, G.J. Massey. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1991. P. 129-148.
  17. Norton J.D. Are Thought Experiments Just What You Thought? // Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 1996. Vol. 26. № 3. P. 333-366.
  18. Bishop M.A. Why Thought Experiments Are Not Arguments // Philosophy of Science. 1999. Vol. 66. № 4. P. 534-541.
  19. Brown J.R. The Laboratory of the Mind: Thought Experiments in the Natural Sciences. 2nd ed. N.Y.: Routledge, 2011. 226 p.
  20. Brook A. Does Philosophy Offer Cognitive Science Distinctive Methods? // Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society / Ed. by M. Hahn, S.C. Stoness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. P. 102-108.
  21. Häggqvist S. A Model for Thought Experiments // Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 2009. Vol. 39. № 1. P. 55-76.
  22. Scott S. Dueling Theories: Thought Experiments in Cognitive Science // Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. 2000. Vol. 22. P. 972-977. URL: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/72w340rr (дата обращения: 20.04.2025).
  23. Hempel C.G. Typological Methods in the Natural and the Social Sciences // Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. N.Y.; Toronto: The Free Press, 1965. P. 155-171.
  24. Поппер К. Об употреблении и злоупотреблении мысленными экспериментами, особенно в квантовой теории // Поппер К. Логика научного исследования / Пер. с англ. под общ. ред. В.Н. Садовского. М.: Республика, 2005. С. 374-396.
  25. Hill C.S. Imaginability, Conceivability, Possibility and the Mind-Body Problem // Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition. 1997. Vol. 87. № 1. P. 61-85.
  26. Yablo S. Is Conceivability a Guide to Possibility? // Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 1993. Vol. 53. № 1. P. 1-42.
  27. Chalmers D.J. Does Conceivability Entail Possibility? // Conceivability and Possibility / Ed. by T.S. Gendler, J. Hawthorne. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. P. 145-200.
  28. Cohen M. Wittgenstein's Beetle and Other Classic Thought Experiments. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 135 p.
  29. Frappier M., Meynell L., Brown J.R. Thought Experiments in Science, Philosophy, and the Arts. L.: Routledge, 2013. 268 p.
  30. Tittle P. What If…: Collected Thought Experiments in Philosophy. N.Y.: Routledge, 2016. 256 p.
  31. Pendergraft G. Free Will and Human Agency: 50 Puzzles, Paradoxes, and Thought Experiments. N.Y.: Routledge, 2023. 264 p.
  32. Патнэм Х. Значение "значения" / Пер. с англ. Л.Б. Макеевой, А.Д. Шмелева // Патнэм Х. Философия сознания / Пер. с англ. Л.Б. Макеевой, А.Д. Шмелева, А.Л. Никифорова. М.: Дом интеллектуальной книги, 1999. С. 164-235.
  33. Нозик Р. Анархия, государство и утопия / Пер. с англ. Б.С. Пинскера. М.: ИРИСЭН; Мысль, 2019. 424 с.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).