Testando Teorias da Referência
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35920/arf.v20i2.13937Palavras-chave:
referência, intuições, a priori, uso linguístico, produção eliciadaResumo
Abstract: How should we test theories of reference? The accepted practice is to test them against the referential intuitions of philosophers. Machery et al (2004) wonder why it is appropriate to rely on the intuitions of philosophers rather than those of the folk. I wonder why it is appropriate to rely on referential intuitions at all. We should not go along with the common philosophical view that these intuitions are a priori. Philosophers might follow linguists in thinking that linguistic intuitions are “the voice” of our linguistic competence. But this view is false. Rather than relying solely on the indirect evidence of intuitions, theories of reference need direct evidence from linguistic usage. The paper considers the problems of doing this.
Resumo:Como devemos testar teorias de referência? A prática aceita é testá-las diante das intuições de referência dos filósofos. Machery e colegas (2004) se perguntam por que é apropriado confiar nas intuições dos filósofos em vez de naquelas das pessoas comuns. Eu me pergunto por que é apropriado confiar em intuições de referência em absoluto. Não devemos seguir a posição filosófica comum de que essas intuições são a priori. Os filósofos poderiam seguir os linguistas em pensar que as intuições linguísticas são “a voz” da nossa competência linguística. Mas essa posição é falsa. Em vez de confiar exclusivamente na evidência indireta das intuições, as teorias da referência precisam de evidências diretas advindas do uso linguístico. Este trabalho considera os problemas em se fazer isso.
Referências
ABARBANELL, Linda.; HAUSER, Marc. (2010). Mayan morality: an exploration of permissible harms. Cognition, 115, p. 207-224.
AHLENIUS, Henrik.; TÄNNSJÖ, Torbj¶rn. (2012). Chinese and westerners respond differently to the trolley dilemmas. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 12 (3-4), p. 195-201.
ALEXANDER, Joshua. (2012). Experimental Philosophy: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
ALEXANDER, Joshua.; WEINBERG, Jonathan. (2007). Analytic epistemology and experimental philosophy. Philosophy Compass, 2(1), p. 56-80.
ALFANO, Mark.; LOEB, Don. (2014). Experimental moral philosophy. In: ZALTA, Edward. (Org). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition). URL= <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/experimental-moral/>.
AUDI, Robert. (2013). Moral Perception. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
BATSON, C. D. (1991). The Altruism Question: Toward a Social-psychological Answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
----- (2011). Altruism in Humans. New York: Oxford University Press.
BEALER, George. (1998). Intuition and the autonomy of philosophy. In: DEPAUL, Michael; RAMSEY, William. (Org.). Rethinking Intuition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, p. 201-239.
BRANDT, Richard. (1954). Hopi Ethics: A Theoretical Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
BUCKWALTER, Wesley.; STICH, Stephen. (2014). Gender and philosophical intuition. In: KNOBE, Joshua.; NICHOLS, Shaun. (Org.) Experimental Philosophy, vol.2, p. 307-346.
CAPPELEN, Herman. (2012). Philosophy without Intuitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
COLAÇO, David. et al (2014). Epistemic intuitions in fake-barn thought experiments. Episteme, 11, 2, p. 199-212.
COSTA, Albert. et al. (2014). Your morals depend on language. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94842.
CUMMINS, Robert. (1998). Reflection on reflective equilibrium. In: DEPAUL, Michael.; RAMSEY, William. (Org.). Rethinking Intuition. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Press, p. 113-127.
CUSHMAN, Fiery. (2008). Crime and punishment: distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108 (2), p. 353-380.
CUSHMAN, Fiery.; MELE, Alfred. (2008). Intentional action: two and half folk concepts. In: KNOBE, Joshua.; NICHOLS, Shaun. (Org.). Experimental Philosophy, vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 171-188.
CUSHMAN, Fiery.; YOUNG, Liane. (2009). The psychology of dilemmas and the philosophy of morality. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 12, p. 9-24.
DAVIDSON, Donald. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In: RESCHER, Nicholas. (Org.). The Logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, p. 81--120.
DEVITT, Michael. (2011a). Experimental semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 82,2, p. 418-435.
----- (2011b). Whither experimental semantics? Theoria, 72, p. 5-36.
----- (2014). Abstract of “Philosophy with intuitions: a response to Herman Cappelen,” palestra dada em St. Andrews, spring 2014, (ms).
----- (2015). Testing theories of reference. In: HAUKIOJA, Jussi. (Org.). Advances in Experimental Philosophy of Language. London: Bloomsbury Press, p. 31-64.
FELTZ, Adam.; COKELY, Edward. (2009). Do judgments about freedom and responsibility depend on who you are? Personality differences in intuitions about compatibilism and incompatibilism. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, p. 342-350.
----- (2011). Individual differences in theory-of-mind judgments: order effects and side effects. Philosophical Psychology, 24 (3), p. 343-355.
FOOT, Philippa. (1978). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. In: Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
GOLDMAN, Alvin. (2007). Philosophical intuitions: their target, their source, and their epistemic status. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 74, p. 1-26.
----- (2010). Philosophical naturalism and intuitional methodology. (Romanell Lecture), Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, p. 115-150.
GOLDMAN, Alvin.; PUST, Joel. (1998). Philosophical theory and intuitional evidence. In: DEPAUL, Michael.; RAMSEY, William. (Org). Rethinking Intuitions: the psychology of intuition and its role in philosophical inquiry. Rowman and Littlefield, p. 179-197.
GONNERMAN, Chad.; REUTER, Shane.; WEINBERG, Jonathan. (2011). More oversensitive intuitions: Print fonts and could choose otherwise. 108th meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Central Division, Minneapolis, MN.
GRUNDMANN, Thomas. (2010). Some hope for intuitions: a reply to Weinberg. Philosophical Psychology, 23, p. 481-509.
GUTTING, Gary. (1998). Rethinking intuition: a historical and metaphilosophical account. In DEPAUL, Michael.; RAMSEY, William. (Org.). Rethinking Intuition. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, p. 3-16.
----- (2009). What Philosophers Know: Case Studies in Recent Analytic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HELZER, Erik.; PIZARRO, David. (2011). Dirty liberals! Reminders of physical cleanliness influence moral and political attitudes. Psychological Science. Publicado online 18 de março de 2011. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611402514.
HORVATH, Joachim. (2010). How (not) to react to experimental philosophy. Philosophical Psychology, 23, p. 447-480.
JACKSON, Frank. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: a defense of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
KAHNEMAN, Daniel. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
KNOBE, Joshua. (2016). Experimental philosophy is cognitive science. In: BUCKWALTER, Wesley; SYTSMA, Justin (Org.). A Companion to Experimental Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 37-52.
KNOBE, Joshua.; NICHOLS, Shaun. (2008). An experimental philosophy manifesto. In: KNOBE, Joshua.; NICHOLS, Shaun. (Org.). Experimental Philosophy, vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press.
LADD, John. (1957). The Structure of a Moral Code: A Philosophical Analysis of Ethical Discourse Applied to the Ethics of the Navaho Indians. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LIAO, Matthew et al. (2012). Putting the trolley in order: experimental philosophy and the loop case. Philosophical Psychology, 25(5), p. 661-671.
LUDWIG, Kirk. (2007). The epistemology of thought experiments: first person vs. third person approaches. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 31, p. 128-159.
----- (2010). Intuitions and relativity. Philosophical Psychology, 23(4), p. 427-45.
MACHERY, Edouard et al. (2004). Semantics, cross-cultural style. Cognition, 92, p. B1-B12.
----- (2013). If folk intuitions vary, then what? Philosophy & Phenomenological Research, 86, 3, p. 618--635.
MACHERY, Edouard.; OLIVOLA, C. Y.; DE BLANC, M. (2009). Linguistic and metalinguistic intuitions in the philosophy of language. Analysis, 69, p. 689-694.
MALLON, Ron et al. (2009). Against arguments from reference. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79, 2, p. 332-356.
MALMGREN, Anna-Sara. (2013). Review of Herman Cappelen, Philosophy Without Intuitions. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. 2013.04.27. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/39362-philosophy-without-intuitions/
MIKHAIL, John. (2011). Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MILL, J.S. (1873). Autobiography. London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer.
NADELHOFFER, Thomas.; FELTZ, Adam. (2008). The actor-observer bias and moral intuitions: adding fuel to Sinnott-Armstrong's fire. Neuroethics, 1(2), p. 133-144.
NADO, Jennifer. (2011). Intuition and Inquiry. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University.
----- (2014). Why intuition? Philosophy & Phenomenological Research, 86, p. 15-41.
NAHMIAS, Eddy.; COATES, D. J.; KVARAN, Trevor. (2007). Free will, moral responsibility and mechanism: experiments on folk intuitions. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 31, p. 214-241.
NICHOLS, Shaun.; KNOBE, Joshua. (2007). Moral responsibility and determinism: the cognitive science of folk intuitions. Nous, 41, p. 663-685.
PETRINOVICH, Lewis.; O'NEILL, Patricia. (1996). Influence of wording and framing effects on moral intuitions. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, p. 145-171.
PLATO (1892). The Dialogues of Plato. Translated by JOWETT, B. New York: Random House.
PUST, Joel. (2000). Intuitions as Evidence. New York: Garland Publishing.
ROSE, David.; DANKS, David. (2013). In defense of a broad conception of experimental philosophy. Metaphilosophy, 44, p. 512-532.
SCHNALL, Simone. et al. (2008a). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 34(8), p. 1069-1109.
SCHNALL, Simone.; BENTON, Jennifer.; HARVEY, Sophie. (2008b). With a clean conscience: cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychological Science, 19, p. 1219--1222.
SCHULZ, Eric.; COKELY, Edward.; FELTZ, Adam. (2011). Persistent bias in expert judgments about free will and moral responsibility: A test of the expertise defense. Consciousness and Cognition, doi:10.1016/j.concog.2011.04.007.
SCHWITZGEBEL, Eric.; CUSHMAN, Fiery. (2011). Expertise in moral reasoning? Order effects on moral judgment in professional philosophers and non-philosophers. Mind and Language, 27, 135-153.
SHOPE, R. K. (1983). The Analysis of Knowing. A Decade of Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
SIDGWICK, Henry. (1874). The Methods of Ethics. London: Macmillan.
----- (1876). Professor Calderwood on intuitionism in morals. Mind, 1(4), p. 563-566.
SINGER, Peter. (1974). Sidgwick and reflective equilibrium. Monist, 58, p. 490--517.
SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG, Walter. (2008). Framing moral intuitions. In: SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG, W. (Org.). Moral Psychology. vol. 2. The Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
SOSA, Ernest. (2007a). Experimental philosophy and philosophical intuition. Philosophical Studies, 132, p. 99-107.
----- (2007b). Intuitions: their nature and epistemic efficacy. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 74 (1), p. 51-67.
----- (2009). A defense of the use of intuitions in philosophy. In: MURPHY, Dominic.; BISHOP, Michael. (Org.). Stich and His Critics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, p. 101-112.
STARMANS, Cristina.; FRIEDMAN, Ori. (2012). The folk conception of knowledge. Cognition. 124(3), p. 272-283.
----- (2014). No, no, KNOW! Academic disciplines disagree about the nature of knowledge. Trabalho apresentado em Common-Sense Beliefs and Lay Theories Preconference at the Fifteenth Annual Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Austin, Texas.
STICH, Stephen. (1988). Reflective equilibrium, analytic epistemology and the problem of cognitive diversity. Synthese, 74.
----- (1990). The Fragmentation of Reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
----- (1996). Deconstructing the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
----- (no prelo). “What is experimental philosophy?” Annals of the Japan Association of Philosophy of Science (em japonês).
STICH, Stephen.; TOBIA, Kevin. (2016). Experimental philosophy and the philosophical tradition. In: BUCKWALTER, Wesley; SYTSMA, J. (Org.). A Companion to Experimental Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 5-21.
----- (no prelo). Intuition and its critics. In: BROWN, Michael; FEHIGE, Yiftach; STUART, James. (Org.) The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments.
STROHMINGER, Nina.; LEWIS, Richard.; MEYER, David. (2011). Divergent effects of different positive emotions on moral judgment. Cognition, 119, p. 295-300.
SUNSTEIN, C.R. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, p. 531-573.
SWAIN, Stacey.; ALEXANDER, Joshua.; WEINBERG, Jonathan. (2008). The instability of philosophical intuitions: Running hot and cold on Truetemp. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76, p. 138-155.
THOMSON, Judith Jarvis. (1985). The trolley problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94, 6, p. 1395-1415.
TOBIA, Kevin.; BUCKWALTER, Wesley; STICH, Stephen. (2013a). Moral intuitions: are philosophers experts? Philosophical Psychology, 26 (5), 629-638.
TOBIA, Kevin.; CHAPMAN, Gretchen.; STICH, Stephen. (2013b). Cleanliness is next to morality, even for philosophers. Journal of Consciousness Studies.
TOBIA, Kevin.; STICH, Stephen. (ms.) A Big and Bold Argument About Expert Intuition.
TVERSKY, Amos.; KAHNEMAN, Daniel. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, p. 453-458.
VAESEN, Kris.; PETERSON, Martin.; VAN BEZOOIJEN, Bart. (2013). The reliability of armchair intuitions. Metaphilosophy, 44(5), p. 559-578.
VALDESOLO, Piercarlo.; DESTENO, David. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science. 17, p. 476--477.
WEINBERG, Jonathan. (2007). How to challenge intuitions empirically without risking skepticism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 30, p. 318-343.
----- (2014). Cappelen between a Rock and a Hard place. Philosophical Studies, 171, p. 545-553.
WEINBERG, Jonathan.; ALEXANDER, Joshua. (2014). The challenge of sticking with intuitions through thick and thin. In: BOTTH, Anthony; ROWBOTTOM, Darrell. (Org.). Intuition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 187-212.
WEINBERG, Jonathan.; NICHOLS, Shaun.; STICH, Stephen. (2001). Normativity and epistemic intuitions. Philosophical Topics, 29, p. 429-460.
WEINBERG, Jonathan. et al (2012). Restrictionism and reflection: challenge deflected, or simply redirected? The Monist, 95(2), p. 200-222.
WIEGMANN, Alex.; OKAN, Yasmina; NAGEL, Jonas. (2012). Order effects in moral judgment. Philosophical Psychology, 25(6), 813-836.
WILLIAMSON, Timothy. (2004). Philosophical ‘intuitions' and skepticism about judgment. Dialectica, 58 (1), p. 109-153.
----- (2005). Armchair philosophy, metaphysical modality and counterfactual thinking. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 105, p. 1-23.
----- (2007). The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
----- (2011). Philosophical expertise and the burden of proof. Metaphilosophy, 42(3), p. 215-229.
ZHONG, C.B.; STREJCEK, Brendan.; SIVANATHAN, Niro. (2010). A clean self can render harsh moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, p. 859-862.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Os autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
- Os autores mantêm os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-ND 4.0), que permite a redistribuição, comercial ou não comercial, desde que a obra original não seja modificada e que seja atribuído o crédito ao autor.
- Os autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
- Os autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (ex.: em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) a qualquer ponto antes ou durante o processo editorial, já que isso pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado (Veja O Efeito do Acesso Livre).
