Why Thought Experiments do have a Life of Their Own: Defending the Autonomy of Thought Experimentation Method

dc.contributor.author Shinod, N. K.
dc.date.accessioned 2022-03-27T01:57:37Z
dc.date.available 2022-03-27T01:57:37Z
dc.date.issued 2017-01-01
dc.description.abstract Thought experiments are one among the oldest and effectively employed tools of scientific reasoning. Hacking (Philos Sci 2:302–308, 1992) argues that thought experiments in contrast to real experiments do not have a life of their own. In this paper, I attempt to show that contrary to Hacking’s contentions, thought experiments do have a life of their own. The paper is divided into three main sections. In the first section, I review the reasons that Hacking sets out for believing in the life of experiments. Second section discusses Hacking’s characterization of thought experiments. The section also reviews his arguments for denying a life to thought experiments. In the third section, I argue for a life of thought experiments. In this section, I discuss the historical evolution of the EPR thought experiment and Galileo’s Free Falling Bodies in detail to show the untenability of Hacking’s arguments. The third section is followed by a conclusion that thought experiments do have a life of their own.
dc.identifier.citation Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research. v.34(1)
dc.identifier.issn 09707794
dc.identifier.uri 10.1007/s40961-016-0077-3
dc.identifier.uri http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40961-016-0077-3
dc.identifier.uri https://dspace.uohyd.ac.in/handle/1/4366
dc.subject Experiments
dc.subject Ian Hacking
dc.subject The life of experiments
dc.subject Thought experiments
dc.title Why Thought Experiments do have a Life of Their Own: Defending the Autonomy of Thought Experimentation Method
dc.type Journal. Article
dspace.entity.type
Files
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description: