Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/10356/142430
Title: | Why the method of cases doesn’t work | Authors: | Suhler, Christopher Louis | Keywords: | Humanities::Philosophy | Issue Date: | 2019 | Source: | Suhler, C. L. (2019). Why the method of cases doesn’t work. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 10(4), 825-847. doi:10.1007/s13164-019-00433-0 | Project: | M4081899 | Journal: | Review of Philosophy and Psychology | Abstract: | In recent years, there has been increasing discussion of whether philosophy actually makes progress. This discussion has been prompted, in no small part, by the depth and persistence of disagreement among philosophers on virtually every major theoretical issue in the field. In this paper, I examine the role that the Method of Cases (MoC) – the widespread philosophical method of testing and revising theories by comparing their verdicts against our intuitions in particular cases – plays in creating and sustaining theoretical disagreements in philosophy. Drawing on work from cognitive psychology, I argue that there is a fundamental incompatibility between (a) the structure of the theories that philosophers seek to construct using the MoC and (b) the structure of the concepts on which our case-specific intuitions are based. This incompatibility renders MoC-based philosophical theorizing unable ever to succeed by the very standards of adequacy that it sets for itself. And this, in turn, helps to explain the depth and persistence of theoretical disagreements – and, in certain ways, the lack of progress – in the many areas of philosophy where the MoC plays an important role. | URI: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/142430 | ISSN: | 1878-5158 | DOI: | 10.1007/s13164-019-00433-0 | Schools: | School of Humanities | Rights: | © 2019 Springer Nature B.V. This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Review of Philosophy and Psychology. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13164-019-00433-0 | Fulltext Permission: | open | Fulltext Availability: | With Fulltext |
Appears in Collections: | SoH Journal Articles |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
ROPP proofing copy.pdf | 454.35 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
SCOPUSTM
Citations
50
3
Updated on Mar 20, 2024
Web of ScienceTM
Citations
50
2
Updated on Oct 31, 2023
Page view(s)
192
Updated on Mar 28, 2024
Download(s) 50
91
Updated on Mar 28, 2024
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Items in DR-NTU are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.