What's the deal with "experimental philosophy"? Is it really the appropriate methodology for exploring folk concepts? Is it just a chapter of social psychology, revealing merely "mundane" details of how the mind works? What is its philosophical import?

You ask good and tough questions for experimental philosophers like myself. I have addressed some of them in my paper with Thomas Nadelhoffer "The Past and Future of Experimental Philosophy" (which can be found at my outdated website ), and some of them have been addressed by Joshua Knobe and Shaun Nichols in the introduction to their collection Experimental Philosophy and by Jonathan Weinberg in several papers. My own view is that "experimental philosophy" does not represent a radical departure from what "empirically informed" philosophers have been doing for some time--i.e., drawing on information from the sciences to inform philosophical discussions. The main difference is that the exp phils do their own empirical work (usually just surveys of non-philosophers' responses to scenarios and questions relevant to philosophical debates). And this methodology, of course, means it is, in one sense, "a chapter of social psychology." Indeed, several psychologists have been labeled experimental...

Can you give me some good examples of things that philosophers have produced throughout history. The reason I'm asking this question is this: I can think of many things that scientists (including mathematicians) have produced but I cannot think of any thing that philosophers have produced. Ahmet Thanks

Philosophers have not produced a lot of concrete things like the technology that flows from scientific advances. But philosophers have produced a lot of abstract things of immense value. Here is an initial list which I hope others will continue: Formal systems of logic (and crucial concepts for proper argumentation, such as validity and norms for abductive reasoning). Important distinctions for moral reasoning, such as the distinction, put roughly here, between deontological (rule-governed) and consequentialist (outcome-based) systems, and the naturalistic fallacy (if only people could avoid the over-hasty moves from "it's natural" to "it's right" and from "it's unnatural" to "it's wrong"). Important work in the philosophy of science about the nature of theories, experiments, evidence, etc., and in particular branches of science, such as biology, psychology, and neuroscience. This work arguably helps scientists do better work and helps the sciences advance. Advancements in law and...

I have a friend who is a top philosophy student. She is also one of the top English students, but bristled at the suggestion that an excellent grasp of language did, in some way, confer upon her her superior ability in conducting philosophical argument. Is this link between proficiency in the language of philosophical argument and one's ability to make philosophical argument too tenuous? Or is philosophy like mathematics, bound by certain axiomatic rules which must be mastered and manipulated with discipline in order to authoritatively address philosophical problems(with the language of the axioms being insignificantly marginal)?

It is hard to think straight about philosophical questions and it's even harder to write clearly about them. If you're like me, you've had the experience of feeling like you are thinking straight about a philosophical question, but when you try to explain it to someone or write about it, it just doesn't come out right. (My students sometimes say things like, "Well, I know what I mean but it's hard to explain.") Perhaps there are philosophical geniuses who just can't get their ideas out well (indeed, perhaps this applies to some who are recognized as philosophical geniuses!). But I think being able to express philosophical thoughts and arguments in a way others can interpret intelligibly (rather than just interpret however they please) is a necessary ability for being a good philosopher. And hence, being a good writer and/or teacher (e.g., Socrates) is a necessary ability for being a good philosopher. Two things I tell my students when writing papers are relevant here: 1. Think of...

Pages