Braisby, Franks & Hampton (1996), Essentialism, word use, and concepts. Cognition .

1. Kokeellinen filosofia / kokeellinen psykologia & Kripke-Putnam teoria luonnonlajitermien referenssistä

2. Braisby, Franks & Hampton (1996), Essentialism, word use, and concepts. Cognition. • Non-essential category • Cats don’t actually mew, but rather the sound is produced by parasites that live in their fur. • Essential individual • Tibby is, unlike other cats, a robot controlled from Mars. • Essential category • All creatures thought of as cats are actually robots controlled from Mars.

3. Judge whether the following statements are true/false: • Existential (+): Cats do exist. • Existential (-): Cats do not exist. • Qualified existential (+): Cats do exist, and people’s beliefs concerning cats have changed. • Qualified existential (-): There are no such things as cats, only robots controlled from Mars. • Membership (+): Tibby is a cat, though we were wrong about her being a mammal. • Membership (-): Tibby is not a cat, though she is a robot controlled from Mars.

4. Essential category (all cats are robots) • Existential (+): Cats do exist. • Existential (-): Cats do not exist. • Qualified existential (+): Cats do exist, and people’s beliefs concerning cats have changed. • Qualified existential (-): There are no such things as cats, only robots controlled from Mars. • Membership (+): Tibby is a cat, though we were wrong about her being a mammal. • Membership (-): Tibby is not a cat, though she is a robot controlled from Mars.

5. Essential individual (only Tibby is a robot) • Existential (+): Cats do exist. • Existential (-): Cats do not exist. • Qualified existential (+): Cats do exist, and people’s beliefs concerning cats have changed. • Qualified existential (-): There are no such things as cats, only robots controlled from Mars. • Membership (+): Tibby is a cat, though we were wrong about her being a mammal. • Membership (-): Tibby is not a cat, though she is a robot controlled from Mars.

6. Braisby’s et al. results • More conflict with externalism in essential category and ess. individual, and in qualified type scenarios, than in other scenarios • Lowest accordance in essential category (all cats are robots) and the following statements: • Qualified existential (-) (”no cats, only robots”) • Qualified Membership (-) (”Tibby is not a cat but rather a robot”)  66% (exp1) / 79% (exp2) accordance with ext.

7. Main problem in Braisby et al.: meaning change

8. Jylkkä, Railo & Haukioja (2009), Psychological essentialism and semantic externalism. Philosophical Psychology.

10. Was the earlier judgment right?  Ensure that the term is used in its pre-discovery sense!

11. Koe 1, tulokset (koehenkilöt yliopistolaisia)

12. Tulokset • Vastauksista: • 69% externalistinen • 28% internalistinen • 3% ”kompromissi” • Vastaajista • 33% puhdas eksternalisti • 4% puhdas internalisti (1 koehlö) • 4% kaikki vastaukset ”hylätty” (1 koehlö) • 58% sekavastaajat

13. Teidän tuloksenne Int Ekst

14. Teidän tuloksenne • 75,4% ekst • 21,9% int • 2,6% kompromissi (0) • Jos hylätyt vastaukset mukana, niin: • 63,7% ekst • 18,5% int • 17,8% hylätty

15. Koe 2 (lukion abit) Zirkaumi Keski-Siperian maaperässä esiintyy laajalti erästä kellertävää, kitkerän hajuista haurasta mineraalia, jota kutsutaan zirkaumiksi. Tutkijat uskovat yleisesti, että tämä aine on yhdistettä ACB. Pohjois-Norjasta löydetään esiintymä ainetta, joka vaikuttaa täysin zirkaumilta—se on kellertävää, kitkerän hajuista, haurasta jne. Kun tutkijat selvittävät sen syvärakennetta, saavat he kuitenkin selville, että aine ei olekaan ACB:tä, kuten zirkaumin uskotaan olevan, vaan erästä aivan toista yhdistettä KML:ää. Tutkijat toteavat, että Pohjois-Norjasta löydetty aine ei ole zirkaumia.

16. Joitain viikkoja sen jälkeen, kun Pohjois-Norjasta löydettiin ylläkuvatunlaista ainetta, Keski-Siperian zirkaumiksi kutsuttua ainetta tutkitaan tarkemmin. Käyttäen uusia menetelmiä ja aiempaa tarkempia mittauslaitteita tutkijat saavat selville olleensa aiemmin väärässä aineen syvärakenteen suhteen: aine onkin KML:ää eikä ACB:tä, kuten aiemmin uskottiin. Paljastuu siis, että Norjasta löydetty aine on sittenkin samaa yhdistettä kuin Keski-Siperian. Kun tutkijat aikaisemmassa tilanteessa sanoivat, että ”Pohjois-Norjasta löydetty aine ei ole zirkaumia”, niin… a) oliko heidän arvionsa silloisen tiedon valossa mielestäsi perusteltu? □ Kyllä □ Ei b) olivatko he mielestäsi tarkalleen ottaen oikeassa? □ Kyllä □ Ei □ Toisaalta kyllä, toisaalta ei □ En osaa sanoa

17. Koe 2, tulokset (lukion abit)

18. Koe 2 tulokset (abit) • Vastauksista: • 48% eksternalistinen • 22% internalistinen • 17% monimielinen • 12% eos • Vastaajista: • Kaksi puhdasta eksternalistia, yksi puhdas internalisti, kaksi puhdasta eos-vastaajaa • 81% sekavastaajia  Sisäinen ristiriita!?

19. Kokeellinen filosofia • Epistemologia • Etiikka • Esim. raitiovaunutapaukset • Vapaa tahto • Esim. ”Knobe-efekti” • Mielenfilosofia

20. Jonathan M. Weinberg, Shaun Nichols & Stephen Stich (2001). Normativity & Epistemic Intuitions, Philosophical Topics, 29, 1 & 2. • “[Richard] Nisbett and his colleagues argue that Ws are significantly more individualistic than EAs, who tend to be much more interdependent and “collectivist” and thus much more concerned about community harmony and consensus, we tried to construct some intuition probes that would tap into this difference. Would individualistic Ws, perhaps, be more inclined to attribute knowledge to people whose beliefs are reliably formed by processes that no one else in their community shares. The answer, it seems, is yes.”

21. One day Charles is suddenly knocked out by a falling rock, and his brain becomes re–wired so that he is always absolutely right whenever he estimates the temperature where he is. Charles is completely unaware that his brain has been altered in this way. A few weeks later, this brain re–wiring leads him to believe that it is 71 degrees in his room. Apart from his estimation, he has no other reasons to think that it is 71 degrees. In fact, it is at that time 71 degrees in his room. Does Charles really know that it was 71 degrees in the room, or does he only believe it? REALLY KNOWS ONLY BELIEVES Jonathan M. Weinberg, Shaun Nichols & Stephen Stich (2001). Normativity & Epistemic Intuitions, Philosophical Topics, 29, 1 & 2.

23. One day John is suddenly knocked out by a team of well–meaning scientists sent by the elders of his community, and his brain is re–wired so that he is always absolutely right whenever he estimates the temperature where he is. John is completely unaware that his brain has been altered in this way. A few weeks later, this brain re–wiring leads him to believe that it is 71 degrees in his room. Apart from his estimation, he has no other reasons to think that it is 71 degrees. In fact, it is at that time 71 degrees in his room. Does John really know that it was 71 degrees in the room, or does he only believe it? REALLY KNOWS ONLY BELIEVES

25. The Faluki are a large but tight knit community living on a remote island. One day, a radioactive meteor strikes the island and has one significant effect on the Faluki – it changes the chemical make–up of their brains so that they are always absolutely right whenever they estimate the temperature. The Faluki are completely unaware that their brains have been altered in this way. Kal is a member of the Faluki community. A few weeks after the meteor strike, while Kal is walking along the beach, the changes in his brain lead him to believe that it is 71 degrees where he is. Apart from his estimation, he has no other reasons tothink that it is 71 degrees. In fact, it is at that time exactly 71 degrees where Kal is. Does Kal really know that it is 71 degrees, or does he only believe it? REALLY KNOWS ONLY BELIEVES

27. Edouard Machery Ron Mallon, Shaun Nichols, Stephen P. Stich (2004). “Semantics, cross-cultural style.” Cognition. • Kripkean Gettier and Jonah cases to Westerners and Asians. • Hypothesis: Asians are more descriptivist (Nisbett: similarity based cognition) vs. Westerners (Nisbett: causal based cognition)

28. Suppose that John has learned in college that Gödel is the man who proved an important mathematical theorem, called the incompleteness of arithmetic. John is quite good at mathematics and he can give an accurate statement of the incompleteness theorem, which he attributes to Gödel as the discoverer. But this is the only thing that he has heard about Gödel. Now suppose that Gödel was not the author of this theorem. A man called “Schmidt”, whose body was found in Vienna under mysterious circumstances many years ago, actually did the work in question. His friend Gödel somehow got hold of the manuscript and claimed credit for the work, which was thereafter attributed to Gödel. Thus, he has been known as the man who proved the incompleteness of arithmetic. Most people who have heard the name “Gödel” are like John; the claim that Gödel discovered the incompleteness theorem is the only thing they have ever heard about Gödel. When John uses the name “Gödel”, is he talking about: • (A) the person who really discovered the incompleteness of arithmetic? or (B) the person who got hold of the manuscript and claimed credit for the work?

29. Machery et al. results • Merkitsevä ero Gödel-tapauksessa (t(70) = -2.55, p < .05) • Ei eroa Joona-tapauksessa (t(69) = .486, p = ns.)

30. Haidt, J., S. Koller & M. Dias (1993). “Affect, Culture and Morality,” J. of Personality &Social Psychology, 65, 4, 613-628. A man goes to the supermarket once a week and buys a dead chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it. • Matala SES: teko on moraalisesti tuomittava • Korkea SES: teko ei ole moraalisesti tuomittava

31. X-fi ja käsiteanalyysi yleensä • Ramsey: jos käsite C on prototyyppinen, perinteinen filosofinen käsiteanalyysi C:n suhteen ei ole mielekästä • X-filosofit yleensä (esim. Stephen Stich, Edouard Machery, Jonathan Weinberg): mikäli ihmisten intuitioissa C:n suhteen on variaatiota, perinteinen käsiteanalyysi C:n suhteen ei ole mielekästä  Korvataan perinteinen käsiteanalyysi x-fi:llä