A slugfest of intuitions: Contextualism and experimental design

Synthese

Volumn 190, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 1771-1792

  Hansen, Nat ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contextualism; Experimental bias; Experimental design; Intuitions; Linguistic experiments; Metaphilosophy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878563175     PISSN: 00397857     EISSN: 15730964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-013-0261-9     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Alexander, J. (2012). Experimental philosophy: An introduction. Cambridge: Polity.
2. Austin, J. L. (1979). A plea for excuses. In Philosophical papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 32-68.
4. Berg, J. (2002). Is semantics still possible? Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 349-359.
5. Boakes, R. A. (1984). From Darwin to behaviorism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Buckwalter, W. (2010). Knowledge isn't closed on saturdays: A study in ordinary language. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(3), 1-19.
7. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech-act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.
8. Chemla, E. (2009a). Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data. Natural Language Semantics, 17(4), 299-340.
9. Chemla, E. (2009b). Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental effects. Semantics and Pragmatics, 2(2), 1-33.
10. Chemla, E., & Spector, B. (2011). Experimental evidence for embedded implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 28(3), 359-400.
11. Chomsky, N. (1985). The logical structure of linguistic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Cohen, S. (1999). Contextualism, skepticism, and the structure of reasons. Noûs, 33(13), 57-89.
13. Cullen, S. (2010). Survey-driven romanticism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(3), 275-296.
14. DeRose, K. (1992). Contextualism and knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LII(4), 913-929.
15. DeRose, K. (2005). The ordinary language basis for contextualism. Philosophical Quarterly, 55(219), 172-198.
16. DeRose, K. (2009). The case for contextualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. DeRose, K. (2011). Contextualism, contrastivism, and X-Phi surveys. Philosophical studies, 156(1), 81-110.
18. Devitt, M. (2012). Whither experimental semantics? Theoria, 27(1), 5-36.
19. Doyen, S., Klein, O., Pichon, C.-L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Behavioral priming: It's all in the mind, but whose mind? PLoS ONE, 7(1), 1-7.
20. Geurts, B. (2002). Donkey business. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(2), 129-156.
21. Fantl, J., & McGrath, M. (2002). Evidence, pragmatics, and justification. The Philosophical Review, 111(1), 67-94.
22. Hansen, N. (2012). On an alleged truth/falsity asymmetry in context shifting experiments. Philosophical Quarterly, 62(248), 530-545.
23. Hansen, N. (forthcoming). Contrasting cases. In J. Beebe (Ed.), Advances in experimental epistemology. New York: Continuum.
24. Hansen, N., & Chemla, E. (forthcoming). Experimenting on contextualism. Mind & Language.
25. Hansen, N., & Chemla, E. (Ms.). Beating a dead donkey: Linguistic experiments and ordinary language philosophy. Ms., University of Reading and LSCP.
26. Horn, L. R. (2001). A natural history of negation. Stanford: CSLI.
27. Intons-Peterson, M. J. (1983). Imagery paradigms: how vulnerable are they to experimenters' expectations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(3), 394-412.
28. Kornblith, H. (2007). Naturalism and intuitions. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 74, 27-49.
29. Krifka, M. (2011). Varieties of semantic evidence. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language and meaning. Berlin: de Gruyter.
30. Larson, S., & Segal, M. (1995). Knowledge of meaning: An introduction to semantic theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
31. Ludlow, P. (2005). Contextualism and the new linguistic turn in epistemology. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning and truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32. Ludlow, P. (2011). The philosophy of generative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. Ludwig, K. (2007). The epistemology of thought experiments. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 31, 128-159.
34. Martí, G. (2009). Against semantic multi-culturalism. Analysis, 69(1), 42-48.
35. May, J., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Hull, J. G., & Zimmerman, A. (2010). Practical interests, relevant alternatives, and knowledge attributions: An empirical study. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(3), 265-273.
36. Myers, J. (2009). Syntactic judgment experiments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 406-423.
37. Phelan, M. (forthcoming). Evidence that stakes don't matter for evidence. Philosophical Psychology.
38. Pfungst, O. (1911). Clever hans. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
39. Putnam, H. (1979). It ain't necessarily so. In Mathematics, matter and method: philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press.
40. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of meaning. In Mind, language and reality: philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. University Press.
41. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Rosenthal, R. (1976). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Irvington Publishers.
43. Pinillos, A. (2011). Some recent work in experimental epistemology. Philosophy Compass, 6(10), 675-688.
44. Schaffer, J. (2006). The irrelevance of the subject: Against subject-sensitive invariantism. Philosophical Studies, 127(1), 87-107.
45. Schaffer, J., & Knobe, J. (2012). Contrastive knowledge surveyed. Noûs, 46(4), 675-708.
46. Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47. Schütze, C. T. (2011). Linguistic evidence and grammatical theory. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2(2), 206-221.
48. Sorensen, R. (1992). Thought experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49. Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (Ms.). A quantitative defense of linguistic, methodology. lingBuzz/001075.
50. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Stern, J. (2009). Metaphor and minimalism. Philosophical Studies, 153(2), 273-298.
52. Szabó, S. Z. (2006). Sensitivity training. Mind & Language, 21(1), 31-38.
53. Travis, C. (1985). On what is strictly speaking true. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 15(2), 345-366.
54. Travis, C. (1994). On constraints of generality. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 94, 165-188.
55. Travis, C. (1989). The uses of sense: Wittgenstein's philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56. Unger, P. (1982). Towards a psychology of common sense. American Philosophical Quarterly, 19(2), 117-129.
57. Wason, P. C. (1961). Response to affirmative and negative binary statements. British Journal of Psychology, 52(2), 133-142.
58. Weinberg, J. M. (2007). How to challenge intuitions empirically without risking skepticism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 31(1), 318-343.