Contemporary: Experimental Philosophy

(intro music) Hi, I'm Joshua Knobe[br]from Yale University, and today, I'm going to be talking about a new approach to philosophy[br]that is sometimes called "experimental philosophy." The basic idea behind[br]experimental philosophy is that we might be able to make some philosophical progress[br]by actually going out and running systematic[br]experimental studies, much like the experiments[br]people usually run in social psychology or[br]in cognitive science. Now you might be thinking "How could running a study like that "ever help us make any[br]progress in philosophy? "After all, Philosophy[br]isn't supposed to be "about how people ordinarily think. "It is supposed to be about figuring out "which answers to these questions "are actually the right ones." This is definitely exactly the[br]right question to be asking. But experimental philosophers claim that by running these[br]studies, we can get some valuable insight into why people[br]have the thoughts they do, and if we understand why[br]people typically have the thoughts they do,[br]we might be able to get a better sense of whether[br]we should be putting our trust in those thoughts[br]or just dismissing them. There's a lot of controversy about whether this approach can ever actually work, but I thought it might be good just to give you a quick example so that you can make up[br]your mind for yourself. The experimental philosopher[br]Felipe De Brigard recently ran a series of[br]experiments to investigate the way people ordinarily[br]think about a famous philosophical thought experiment called "The Experience Machine." His idea was that if we could[br]get a better understanding of what is going on in our minds when we hear this thought experiment, we might be in a better[br]position to figure out whether our thoughts about[br]it are correct or incorrect. Now the experience machine thought experiment goes like this. Imagine that in the future,[br]there are super-duper neuroscientists, and these[br]neuroscientists are able to create a machine that[br]can stimulate your brain in such a way that you think you're having a truly amazing life. So if you enter the[br]machine, you will think you are accomplishing[br]extraordinary things, that you're having deep and[br]fulfilling relationships, and that everyone[br]admires and respects you. But you won't really be[br]doing anything at all. In real life, you'll just be a person lying in a vat of water somewhere being stimulated to believe that all these amazing things are happening. Now comes the question: would you go into the machine? Most people say that they wouldn't, and philosophers sometimes start with this basic thought and use it as part of an argument for the conclusion that there is more to life than just experiencing happiness, that there is something[br]important about being connected up, in the[br]right way, to reality. But De Brigard thought that maybe there was more to this[br]story, so he conducted an experiment in which participants were given a case we might call "The Reverse Experiment Machine." The reverse experience[br]machine case goes like this. Imagine you are going[br]about your ordinary life, when one day, you get a visit from a mysterious man named Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith explains to[br]you that this whole life you think you've been leading, with all your supposed[br]friends, your accomplishments, even your mother and father,[br]is simply an illusion. A number of years ago, you encountered some super-duper neuroscientists and they offered to put you[br]into an experience machine, where you would be stimulated to believe that you had exactly this life[br]you think you've been having. Now, you face a question: if you'd like, you can leave the machine and go back to your real life, or, if you prefer, you can[br]stay inside the machine and the neuroscientists[br]will erase any memory you have of the visit from Smith. So think about it for a moment. What would you do? When De Brigard framed[br]the thought experiment in this reversed way, he[br]found that most people actually said they wanted[br]to stay in the machine. So now it seems that we have learned something important about ourselves, and that we might want to re-evaluate the conclusion we drew[br]from the original version. When we were just thinking[br]about that original version, we had a particular intuition,[br]and that intuition led us, as part of a complex[br]philosophical argument, to arrive at a certain conclusion about what was truly important in life. But now it seems that we've[br]acquired some new knowledge about the psychological[br]processes that made us have that intuition in the first place. We learned that these[br]processes aren't just sensitive to the difference between[br]reality and illusion. They also leave us with a strong tendency to stick with whatever sort[br]of life we've already got. So, now that you've learned this new fact about how people think, would you still arrive[br]at the same conclusion from the experience[br]machine thought experiment? Subtitles by the Amara.org community