What Are We to Think about Thought Experiments?

Arguments from thought experiment ask the reader to imagine some hypothetical, sometimes exotic, often fantastic, scenario for the sake of illustrating or countering some claim. Variously characterized as mental experimentation, imaginary cases, and even crazy cases, thought experiments figure into both scientific and philosophical arguments. They are often criticized for their fictive nature and for their lack of grounding. Nevertheless, they are common especially in arguments in ethics and philosophy of mind. Moreover, many thought experiments have spawned variations that attempt to both affirm and refute their original arguments. These emended thought experiments exhibit a variety of styles, details, and embellishments. A rhetorical analysis of these variations suggests a reciprocal influence between the arguers' selection of details and their philosophical commitments. I offer examples of this relationship from the variations on John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment and Judith Thomson's unconscious violinist thought experiment.     

Di 帝 and Tian 天 in Ancient Chinese Thought: A Critical Analysis of Hegel’s Views

The notions of Di (Emperor), Shangdi (God in heaven), and Tian (Heaven) were endowed with a variety of meanings and were used to refer to different objects of worship in ancient Chinese religion. In different eras, Di referred to the earthly emperor as well as to the heavenly emperor; Tian referred to the physical sky as well as to a supreme personal god in different contexts. Hegel oversimplified these three notions when he characterized ancient Chinese religion as a kind of natural religion. This article aims to clarify Hegel’s misunderstanding of ancient Chinese religion by clarifying the meanings and references of these three notions as they appeared in the Yin-Shang and the Zhou Dynasties.     

IS THEOLOGY RESPECTABLE AS METAPHYSICS?

Theology involves inquiry into God's nature, God's purposes, and whether certain experiences or pronouncements come From God. These inquiries are metaphysical, part of theology's concern with the veridicality of signs and realities that are independent from humans. Several research programs concerned with the relation between theology and science aim to secure theology's intellectual standing as a metaphysical discipline by showing that it satisfies criteria that make modern science reputable, on the grounds that modern science embodies contemporary canons of respectability for metaphysical disciplines. But, no matter the ways in which theology qua metaphysics is shown to resemble modern science, these research programs seem destined for failure. For, given the currently dominant approaches to understanding modern scientific epistemology, theological reasoning is crucially dissimilar to modern scientific reasoning in that it treats the existence of God as a certainty immune to refutation. Barring the development of an epistemology of modern science that is amenable to theology, theology as metaphysics is intellectually disreputable.