Experimentos mentais como argumentos: objeções à abordagem de Norton
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51359/2357-9986.2019.247942Keywords:
Norton, mental experiments, knowledge, justification, arguments, inference.Abstract
It is usually supposed that mental experiments are imaginary devices that allow us to acquire beliefs that constitute knowledge. John D. Norton has presented an influential approach to explain how scientific mental experiments can produce new knowledge about the world. He claims that there is nothing distinctive about mental experiments, based on his claim that they work exactly like arguments. In this paper, we challenge his approach. We examine essential aspects of his approach that involve the notions of “argument” and “inference” in order to show that a subject who comes to knows something through running or conducting a mental experiment hardly is considered as having effectively ran an argument or an inferential reasoning process.References
AUDI, Robert. The Sources of Knowledge. In: MOSER, P. K. (Ed.). TheOxford Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.p. 71–94.
BASSHAM, Gregory et al. Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction. 2nd.ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.
BISHOP, Michael A. Why Thought Experiments Are Not Arguments?Philosophy of Science, v. 66, n. 1, p. 534–541, 1999.
BOGHOSSIAN, Paul. Blind Reasoning. Aristotelian Society SupplementaryVolume, v. 77, n. 1, p. 225–248, 2003.
BOGHOSSIAN, Paul. What is inference? Philosophical Studies, v. 169, n.1, p. 1–18, 2014.
BOKULICH, A. Rethinking thought experiments. Perspectives in Sciences,v. 9, n. 1, p. 285–307, 2001.
BROOME, John. Normative practical reasoning. Aristotelian SocietySupplementary Volume, v. 75, n. 1, p. 175–193, 2001.
BROWN, J. Thought experiments since the scientific revolution.International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, v. 1, n. 1, p. 1–15, 1986.
BROWN, J. The laboratory of the mind: thought experiments in the naturalsciences. London: Routledge, 1991.
BROWN, J. Why empiricism won’t work. Proceedings Philosophy ofScience Association, v. 2, n. 1, p. 271–279, 1992.
BROWN, J. Why thought experiments do transcend empiricism. In:Contemporary debates in the philosophy of science. Malden: Blackwell,2004.
BUZZONI, M. Thought experiment in the natural sciences. Würzburg:Königshausen & Neumann, 2008.
BUNZL, M. The Logic of Thought Experiments. Synthese, v. 106, n. 1, p.227–240, 1996.
COHEN, Stewart. How to Be a Fallibilist. Philosophical Perspectives, v. 2,n. 1, p. 91–123, 1988.
COPI, I.; COHEN, C. Introduction to Logic. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall, 2005.
D’AGOSTINO, M.; FLORIDI, L. The enduring scandal of deduction: Ispropositional logic really uninformative? Synthese, v. 167, n. 1, p. 271,2009.
DAVIES, D. Thought experiments and fictional narratives. Croatian Journalof Philosophy, v. 7, n. 1, p. 29–45, 2007.
DE ALMEIDA, C. Epistemic closure, skepticism and defeasibility.Synthese, v. 188, n. 1, p. 197–215, 2011.
DRETSKE, Fred. Epistemic operators. Journal of Philosophy, v. 67, n. 24,p. 1007–1023, 1970.
EEMEREN, F. H. Van; GROOTENDORST, R.; HENKEMANS, A. F. S.Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, 2002.
EEMEREN, F. H. Van; GROOTENDORST, R. Argumentation,Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erblaum Associates, 1992.
ELGIN, C. Fiction as thought experiment. Perspectives in Science, v. 22, n.1, p. 221–241, 2014.
FORGE, J. Thought Experiments in The Philosophy of Physical Science. In:HOROWITZ, T.; G. MASSEY (Eds.). Thought Experiments in Science andPhilosophy. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1991.
GENDLER, T. Galileo and the indispensability of scientific thoughtexperiment. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, v. 49, n. 1, p.397–424, 1998.
GENDLER, T. Thought experiments rethought and reperceived. Philosophyof Science, v. 71, n. 1, p. 1152–1163, 2004.
GOVIER, T. A Practical Study of Argument. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,2010.
GOODING, D. What is experimental about thought experiments? In: PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy Of ScienceAssociation 1992.
GOODING, D. Imaginary science. The British Journal for the Philosophy ofScience, v. 45, n. 1, p. 1029–1045, 1994.
HÄGGQVIST, S. Thought Experiments in Philosophy. Stockholm:Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1996.
HINTIKKA, J. Logic, Language-Games and Information. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1973.
HINTIKKA, J. G. H. von Wright on Logical Truth and Distributive NormalForms. In: SCHILPP, P. A.; HAHN, L. (Eds.). The Philosophy of G. H. vonWright: The Library of Living Philosophers 19. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.,1973.
HITCHCOCK, D. Informal Logic and The Concept of Argument. In:JACQUETTE, D. (Ed.). Philosophy of Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007.
HOUTLOSSER, P. Points of View. In: EEMEREN, F. H. Van (Ed.). CriticalConcepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UniversityPress, 2001.
IRVINE, A. D. On the Nature of Thought Experiments in ScientificReasoning. In: HOROWITZ, T.; G. MASSEY (Eds.). Thought Experimentsin Science and Philosophy. Savage, MD: Rowman and LittlefieldPublishers, 1991.
JOHNSON, R. Manifest Rationality. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, 2000.
LAYMON, R. Idealization, explanation, and confirmation. In: HOROWITZ,T.; G. MASSEY (Eds.). Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy.Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1991.
MIŠČEVIĆ, N. Mental models and thought experiments. InternationalStudies in the Philosophy of Science, v. 6, n. 1, p. 215–226, 1992.
MIŠČEVIĆ, N. Modelling intuitions and thought experiments. CroatianJournal of Philosophy, [s. l.], v. 7, n. 1, p. 181–214, 2007.
NERSESSIAN, N. How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics ofconceptual change in science. In: GIERE, R.; H. FEIGL (Eds.). Cognitivemodels of science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992.
NERSESSIAN, N. In the Theoretician’s laboratory: thought experimentingas mental modeling. Proceedings of Philosophy of Science Association, v. 2,n. 1, p. 291–301, 1993.
NERSESSIAN, N. Thought Experimenting as Mental Modeling. CroatianJournal of Philosophy, v. 7, n. 2, p. 125–161, 2007.
NORTON, J. Thought experiments in Einstein’s work. In: MASSEY, T.Horowitz &. G. (Ed.). Thought experiments in science and philosophy.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1991.
NORTON, J. Are thought experiments just what you thought? CanadianJournal of Philosophy, v. 26, n. 1, p. 333–366, 1996.
NORTON, J. A material theory of induction. Philosophy of Science, v. 70, n.1, p. 647–670, 2003.
NORTON, J. On thought experiments: is there more to the argument?Philosophy of Science,v. 71, n. 1, p. 1139–1151, 2004.
NORTON, J. Why thought experiments do not transcend empiricism. In: C.HITCHCOCK (Ed.). Contemporary debates in the philosophy of science.Somerset: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004.
NORTON, J. A little survey of induction. In: P. ACHINSTEIN (Ed.).Scientific evidence: philosophical theories and applications. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.
NORTON, J. There are no universal rules for induction. Philosophy ofScience, v. 77, n. 1, p. 765–777, 2010.
NORTON, J. History of science and the material theory of induction:Einstein’s Quanta, Mercury’s Perihelion. European Journal of Philosophy ofScience, v. 1, n. 1, p. 3–27, 2011.
NORTON, J. A material dissolution of the problem of induction. Synthese,v. 191, n. 1, p. 671–690, 2014.
NORTON, J. The material theory of induction. [s. l.], no prelo.
NOZICK, Robert. Philosophical Explanations. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1981.
PRITCHARD, Duncan. Epistemic Luck. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.
RESCHER, N. Thought Experimentation in Presocratic Philosophy. In:HOROWITZ, T.; G. MASSEY (Eds.). Thought Experiments in Science andPhilosophy. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1991.
SEQUOIAH-GRAYSON, S. The Scandal of Deduction: Hintikka on theInformation Yield of Deductive Inferences. Journal of Philosophical Logic,v. 37, n. 1, p. 67–94, 2008.
SIDELLE, A. Review of Häggqvist’s Thought Experiments in Philosophy.Philosophical Review, v. 107, n. 1, p. 480–483, 1998.
SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG, W.; FOGELIN, R. Understanding Arguments:An Introduction to Informal Logic. 8a. ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2010.
SNOECK HENKEMANS, A. F. Argumentation, explanation, and causality.In: SANDERS, T.; SCHILPEROORD, J.; SPOOREN, W. (Eds.). TextRepresentation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins Publishing, 2001.
SORENSEN, R. Thought Experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1992.
STUART, M. Norton and the Logic of Thought Experiments. Axiomathes,v. 26, n. 1, p. 451–466, 2016.
WILLIAMSON, Timothy. Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2000.
WALTON, D. Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 1996.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
A Revista Perspectiva Filosófica orienta seus procedimentos de gestão de artigos conforme as diretrizes básicas formuladas pelo Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). http://www.cnpq.br/web/guest/diretrizesAutores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
Os autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, sendo o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pt_BR que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
Os autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista, com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista (Consultar http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html).
Esta revista está licenciada com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional.
