Joshua Knobe - What is Experimental Philosophy?

‘Experimental philosophy’ is a new field of study, in which philosophical problems are subjected to surveys of common people expressing their common views. What can be learned from the amateur ideas of ordinary people? How might experimental philosophy affect philosophical inquiry?

Joshua Knobe is an experimental philosopher, whose work ranges across issues in philosophy of mind and action and ethics.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[tantzer]

In the thought experiment, subjects use “intentionality” as a proxy for “moral/legal responsibility.” So, they’re really answering a different question: whether to praise/reward or blame/punish the company; so, the subjects are in effect saying that foreseen incidental harm to the environment brings culpability, but foreseen incidental benefit to the environment does not justify praise. That’s very reasonable: we imprison people for reckless unintentional homicide but are not impressed when someone saves a life for ulterior motives. What this experiment shows is that because moral responsibility is foremost in people’s minds, they’ll (mis?)interpret the word “intentional” as “responsible.”

[treasurepoem]

I really enjoy listening and learning things from your very interesting conversations with Joshua Knobe.

[GM-oi]

This new field of study in philosophy - experimental philosophy - does have a future. I like it.

As to the given example of the concept of the intentional, let's first find the precise definition of the intentional.

If a manager of a company knows beforehand that a new policy will harm the environment and he or she implements the policy, this fact reveals that the harm is nevertheless acceptable to him or her. If the manager knows in advance that a new policy will help the environment and he or she implements the policy, this fact also reveals that the help is acceptable to him or her. In all the cases of intentional acts, a future consequence of the act is not only known by the person but also acceptable to him or her. Hence, the definition: An action is intentional if and only if the person knows in advance the future consequence of the action and the consequence is acceptable to him or her.

The manager acts intentionally in both cases in the given example because the future consequence of a new policy is not only known by the manager but also acceptable to him or her.

[maniacfight]

Excellent interview and great insights, My first thought was, Is Bruce Banner now a Philosopher?

[terraconz]

The problem was that people don't know what "intent" means. In both cases the intent was to make money everything else was just collateral. Don't matter if the collateral is good or bad, it has nothing to do with the intent of the chairman which was to make money.

[fractaorganism]

harming the environment has an objectively normative dimension to it for almost all human beings at almost all times, going all the way back to hunter-gatherer societies. this has involved an inescapable responsibility of humans to the environment whether one intends harm or not, and therefore behaviors for which one can be guilty are permanently attached to harming the environment, whereas there is no guilt to whether one helps the environment or not, and therefore no responsibility or guilty intentions apply.

[ricklanders]

I'm just a lowly commoner, so I hope I can give a opinion here. ;-)

What I think this shows is less to do with intent or emotion, and more to do with some of the complex factors going into making moral judgments, which apparently takes place using different parts of the brain than the emotional center accounted for by the brain damaged subjects.

I think the key factor is not so much the intent in the logical sense -- as obviously the chairman had no direct or stated intent either to harm or to help the environment -- but the idea of care or concern for others and an attribution of responsibility based on what we could call the ethical lapse reflected by that attitude.

In both cases, the chairman said he didn't care whether it hurt or helped the environment, he just wanted to make the money. In the first case, when the environment was in fact harmed, attribution of responsibility was assigned to the chairman based on his ethical lapse, i.e., of not caring or showing the proper concern. In the second case, when he didn't care and the environment was helped, attribution of intent is withheld based on that same attitude reflecting the ethical lapse.

In other words, when we feel people should have concern about others but they don't, and a bad outcome occurs, we hold the person responsible not necessarily because it was his direct intent to cause harm, but because his actions showed an ethical lack of concern. That ethical attitude (or in this case, non-ethical attitude) merely gets "lumped in" with intent as a way of attributing responsibility. And contrariwise, when we feel people should have concern about others but they don't, and a good outcome occurs, we don't then give them credit for the good outcome because we are still holding them accountable to their ethical attitude or stance, in this case again, the lack of concern. Intentionality is merely the vehicle for attributing responsibility in the absence of a more nuanced choice, e.g., "didn't intend to, but is still responsible, " etc., a choice made in a part or process of the brain not necessarily linked to emotion per se, but to a part of the brain linked to a different aspect and calculus of moral responsibility.

[TerryBollinger]

An interesting discussion, thanks. My first thought was how many times I've told philosopher friends that my field of cognitive science is "experimental philosophy, " covering cognition, consciousness, morality, self-awareness, and pretty much everything else in a lab setting. Robots, even now, _must_ make moral decisions if they are to function in a way that is truly useful, especially in team settings. We take philosophy very seriously and analytically, even if we don't (for funding reasons? :) phrase it that way.

My second thought, Joshua Knobe, is that you need to include networking effects to get self-consistent results. Take Robert Lawrence Kuhn's example: What if the emotions of those people are the product of a widespread, carefully orchestrated disinformation campaign _focused_ on preventing logic by instantly triggering strong emotions? It becomes an addiction scenario, and require "pumping" the victims with a constant barrage of emotional distractions to keep them from calming down enough to think clearly.

I would even suggest that the reason human intelligence is so difficult to define is due to complex networking effects: We stand on each other's cognitive and moral shoulder's far more than we realize. Even park rangers occasionally (and always off camera) comment that in terms of cleverness, there's an intellectual overlap between their smartest bears and their dumbest campers. The real difference is that humans network across generations via language and history, and bears, for the most part, don't.

Network is a pain experimentally, I know. But I hope you'll consider it... and I say that as self-proclaimed (long before watching this video) fellow "experimental philosopher."

[ModestNeophyte]

I always tend to feel a bit aprehensive when seeing newer upcoming science educators.. wondering who the next one will be.

[smezzourh]

So basically "experimental philosophy" is opinion poll or preliminary inquiry before doing the real and good stuff (namely philosophy).

[streamofconsciousness]

Both were intentional in that he knew the consequences, he just did not care about the environment, in his world that did not factor into the equation. That he was not gung ho about helping the environment and equally nonplussed about harming it makes this CeO more than a bit of a sociopath.

[missh]

There's common modern and common metamodern. Natives use a set of parameters according to the position of earth to the outer planets and constellations. However, these parameters are not always exclusive to the group. The primary understanding is to acknowledge the meaning and interpretation as an independent inquiry for overall self development and wellbeing. This is not the common perspective for thinking about moral positions but it can offer a glimpse into sovereignty and reinventing how money can continue being produced in a less volatile way. Dont ask me how though lol. It sounds right... "as long as it brings more money!" 😏

[bobcabot]

ja for sure Philosophy is all about experimenting with our brains...

[shabeehulhasan]

Can some body please write/summarise what he/Joshua said

[euclidofalexandria]

4:33 choice and bifucation... sentience or AI
?

[solarionispirit]

The question has nothing to do with intention. His intention was to make money in both cases. But he is responsible at least in the first case. And in the second case it is not his merit. That's all. So this story like this goes nowhere just a stupid poll. Is it called philosophy? :( Why not ask if he wears sunglasses?

[Maxwell-mvrx]

Guys it not philosophy because you doesnt understand philosophy proceedings. Please read Russell inque




. Guys it is rambling gibberich.

[kylebowles]

Lol wtf, I said no to both possibilities. I do however spend more time thinking about how to be consistent than most people

I used the same part of my brain that does logic word problems. This situation is analogous to the word problem "you have 3 eggs in bucket A and 2 in bucket B, how many buckets do you have?" The eggs are irrelevant, the answer is 2 buckets.

I'd have a drink with this Joshua guy; he seems pretty cool

[hhiskgj]

The people who were asked are answering with legal factors in mind and they stated political stance pulse the public are idiots in almost anything

[Maxwell-mvrx]

It isnt no sense. Concern guys mind he needs reading philosophy proceedings. Please read Russell inquiry meaning and true. Guys shows his mind means nothing.