Felsefi Gelenekte Yeni Bir Hareket: Deneysel Felsefe

Öz

Deneysel Felsefe (Experimental Philosophy) geçtiğimiz yirmi yıl içerisinde çağdaş felsefe literatüründe hızlı ve geniş bir yayılım göstererek gerek Avrupa’da gerek Amerika’da oldukça popüler olan disiplinler arası bir felsefi akım olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu yeni felsefi akım genel olarak iki temel unsuru bir araya getirir. (1) Geleneksel felsefeyle (traditional philosophy) ilişkilendirilen konuları temel alarak, (2) metodolojik açıdan geleneksel felsefenin aksine sosyal ve bilişsel bilimler (social and cognitive science) metodolojisini kullanarak yalnız filozofların değil felsefe alanı dışında olan sıradan insanların (ordinary people) da felsefi yargıları (philosophical intuitions) hakkında sistematik deneysel çalışmalar yürütür. Bu bilgiler ışığında bu makalede deneysel felsefenin temel motivasyonuna kısa bir giriş yaptıktan sonra, metodolojik açıdan geleneksel analitik felsefe ve deneysel felsefe arasındaki farka, felsefi yargıların ne olduğuna ve yargıların deneysel felsefedeki rolüne genel bir bakış açısı getirerek, deneysel felsefe alanında yapılmış olan bazı sistematik deneysel çalışmalara ve bu alandaki son gelişmelere göz atıp yine bu çalışma sonuçlarına getirilen eleştirilerin tartışmasını okuyucuyla buluşturacağız. Bu makalenin bir başka amacı da Türkçe felsefe literatüründe henüz çok yeni olan ve Türkçe literatürde sadece birkaç çalışma ile sınırlı kalan bu alanı yine bu alanda yapılmış bazı deneysel çalışmaların sonuçlarıyla inceleyerek yöntem bakımından geleneksel felsefeyle olan benzerlik ve farklılıklarını ortaya koyarak Türkçe felsefe literatürüne katkı sağlamak olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Deneysel felsefe
• geleneksel felsefe
• sosyal ve bilişsel bilimler metodolojisi
• felsefi yargı
• epistemik yargı

A New Movement in the Philosophical Tradition: Experimental Philosophy

Öz

Experimental philosophy has emerged as an interdisciplinary philosophical movement that has become very popular both in Europe and America, showing a rapid and wide spread in the contemporary philosophical literature over the past 20 years. This new philosophical movement generally combines two key elements: (1) It is based on topics associated with traditional philosophy, and (2) unlike traditional philosophy, it methodologically uses social and cognitive science methodology, not only for philosophers but also for ordinary people outside the field of philosophy by conducting systematic empirical studies on philosophical intuitions. In light of this, after briefly introducing the principal motivation of experimental philosophy, I will give an overview in this article of the methodological difference between traditional analytical philosophy and experimental philosophy, of what philosophical intuitions are, and of the role intuitions have in experimental philosophy. Then I will examine the latest developments and discuss the criticisms that have been brought to the results of these studies. Another purpose of this study is to contribute to the Turkish literature on philosophy by investigating the latest developments in this field. This field is quite new and limited to only a few studies in the Turkish literature on philosophy. As such, this study will examine the results from some experimental studies and reveal the similarities and differences this method has with traditional philosophy, thereby bringing the latest experimental studies in this new field to the Turkish literature on philosophy, which has yet to become well-known.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Experimental philosophy
• traditional philosophy
• methodology of the social and cognitive sciences
• philosophical intuition
• epistemic intuition

Kaynakça

1. Alexander, Joshua. “Philosophical Expertise.” A Companion to Experimental Philosophy içinde, ed. Justin Systma ve Wesley Buckwalter, Malden, 557-567. MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. google scholar
2. Alexander, Joshua, Jonathan M. Weinberg. “Analytic Epistemology and Experimental Philosophy”, Philosophy Compass 1, no.1, (2007): 56-80. google scholar
3. Alexander, Joshua ve Jonathan M. Weinberg. “The “Unreliability” of Epistemic Intuitions”. Current Controversies in Experimental Philosophy içinde, ed. Edouard Machery ve Elizabeth O’Neill, 128-145. New York: Routledge, 2014. google scholar
4. Buckwalter, Wesley, Stephen Stich. “Gender and Philosophical Intuition”, içinde Experimental Philosophy, ed. Joshua Knobe ve Shaun Nichols, 307- 346. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. google scholar
5. Colaço, David, Wesley Buckwalter, Stephen Stich, Edouard Machery. “Epistemic Intuitions in Fake-Barn Thought Experiments.” Episteme 2, no.11, (2014): 199-212. google scholar
6. Dural Özer, Özge. “A Dual Process Model For Incompatibilist and Compatibilist Folk Intuitions: An Experimental Philosophical Approach to Moral Responsibility and Determinism.” (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Middle East Technical University, 2019. google scholar
7. Gettier, Edmund. “Is Justified True Belief?.” Analysis 6, no.23 (1963): 121-123. google scholar
8. Gettier, Edmund. “Gerekçelendirilmiş Doğru İnanç Bilgi Midir?.” Çeviren Sedat Yazıcı. Felsefeye Giriş, 57-60. Alfa Basım Yayın Dağıtım, İstanbul, 1999. google scholar

9. Kauppinen, Antti. “The Rise and Fall Experimental Philosophy.” Philosophical Explorations 2, no.10 (2007): 95-118. google scholar
10. Kim, Minsun, Yuan Yuan. “No Cross-Cultural Differences in Gettier Car Case Intuition: A Replication Study of Weinberg et al. 2001.” Episteme 3, no.12 (2015): 355-361. google scholar
11. Knobe, Joshua. “Experimental Philosophy.” Philosophy Compass 1, no.2, (2007): 81-92. google scholar
12. Knobe, Joshua. “Experimental Philosophy.” Oxford Handbooks Online, 2012. google scholar
13. Knobe, Joshua. “Philosophers are doing something different now: Quantitative data.” Cognition 135 (2015): 36-38. google scholar
14. Knobe, Joshua Shaun Nichols. “An Experimental Philosophy Manifesto.” Experimental Philosophy içinde, ed. Joshua Knobe ve Shaun Nichols, 3-14. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. google scholar
15. Machery, Edouar, Stephen Stich, David Rose, Amita Chatterjee. “Gettier Across Cultures”, Nous 1 , no.0 (2015): 1- 20. google scholar
16. Machery, Edouard, Stephen Stich, David Rose, Mario Alai. “The Gettier Intuition from South America to Asia”, Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research 3, no.34 (2017): 517-541. google scholar
17. Mallon, Ron, Edouard Machery, Shaun Nichols, Stephen Stich. “Against Arguments from Reference”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 2, no.79 (2009): 332-356. google scholar
18. Mallon, Ron. “Experimental Philosophy”, Oxford Handbooks Online, 2016. google scholar
19. Mortensen, Kaya, Jennifer Nagel. “Armchair-Friendly Experimental Philosophy”, A Companion to Experimental Philosophy içinde, ed. Justin Sytsma ve Wesley Buckwalter, Malden, 53-70. MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. google scholar
20. Nagel, Jennifer - San Juan , Valerie - A. Mar, Raymond. “Lay denial of knowledge for justified true beliefs”, Cognition 129 (2013): 652-661. google scholar
21. Nisbett, Richard, Kaipin Peng, Incheol Choi, Ara Norenzayan. “Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition”, Psychological Review 2, no.108, (2001): 291- 310. google scholar
22. Plakias, Alexandre. “Experimental Philosophy”, Oxford Handbooks Online, 2015. google scholar
23. Seyedsayamdost, Hamid. “On Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions: Failure of Replication.” Episteme 1, no.12, (2015): 95-116. google scholar
24. Seyedsayamdost, Hamid. “On gender and philosophical intuition: Failure of replication and other negative results.” Philosophical Psychology 4, no.28, 2015a, 642-673. google scholar
25. Spincer, Finn. “Cultural Variations in Folk Epistemic Intuitions”, Review of Philosophy and Pscychology (2010): 515-529. google scholar
26. Starmans, Christina, Ori Friedman. “Is knowledge subjective? A sex difference in adults’ epistemic intuitions.” 6th Bien-nial Meeting of the Cognitive Development Society konferasında sunulan bildiri, San Antonio, TX, October16-17,2009.(Öz). http://www.cogdevsoc.org/prog2009/CDS09Program.pdf. google scholar
27. Stich, Stephen, Kevin Tobia. “Experimental Philosophy and the Philosophical Tradition”, içinde A Companion to Experimental Philosophy, ed. Justin Sytsma ve Wesley Buckwalter, Malden, 5-21. MA: Wiley- Blackwell, 2016. google scholar
28. Stuart, Michael. “Thought Experiment: State of the Art”, içinde The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments , ed. Michael, Stuart, Yiftach Fehige ve James R. Brown, London, 1-28. UK: Routledge, 2018. google scholar
29. Swain, Stacey, Joshua Alexander, Jonathan Weinberg. “The Instability of Philosophical Intuitions: Running Hot and Cold on Truetemp”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1, no.76 (2008): 138-151. google scholar
30. Ünlüsoy, Abdullah. “Felsefedeki Metodolojik Bir Yaklaşım Olarak Deneysel Felsefe Akımının Yargı Analizlerinin Epistemik Değeri”, Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, no.18 (2019): 391-417. google scholar
31. Vaesen, Krist, Martin Peterson, Bart Van Bezooijen. “The Reliability of Armchair Intuitions”, Metaphilosophy 5, no.44 (2013): 558-578. google scholar
32. Vaidya, Anand J. “Philosophical Methodology: The Current Debate”, Philosophical Psychology 3, no.23 (2010): 391-417. google scholar
33. Yüksel, Necmiye. “Do Epistemic Intuitions Vary Actor Across? A Mixed- Methods Study of Philosophers’ and Non-Philosophers’ Knowledge Attributions”, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). University of Exeter, 2021. google scholar
34. Weinberg, Jonathan M., Shaun Nichols, Stephen Stich. “Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions”, Philosophical Topics 1-2, no.29 (2001): 429-460. google scholar
35. Zamzow, Jennifer L., Shaun Nichols. “Variations in Ethical Intuitions”, Philosophical Issues 19 (2009): 368-338. google scholar