Raman, Thought Experiments

Thought Experiments and Empirical Experiments (2/2)

(This post is the second in a two-part series on the relationship between thought experiments and empirical experiments. The first post can be found here.)

I am going to knock out all of the design theory up front so bear with me for one paragraph and then we can get back to the fun stuff. According to Roger Kirk, who wrote one of the most widely used textbooks for research design in the behavioral sciences, “Experiments are characterized by the: (1) manipulation of one or more independent variables; (2) use of controls such as randomly assigning participants or experimental units to one or more independent variables; and (3) careful observation or measurement of one or more dependent variables. The first and second characteristics—manipulation of an independent variable and the use of controls such as randomization—distinguish experiments from other research strategies” (Kirk 1968). A good experiment isolates the variables being studied to remove outside influence and allow researchers to make strong, causal claims about relationships between variables.

Now that the basic theory is out of the way, lets see how it applies to empirical experiments. Good empirical experiments start with at least one scientific hypothesis (and usually one or more statistical hypotheses) that is falsifiable and offers one or more predictions that can be experimentally tested. Because good empirical experiments isolate from and control for outside influences, they are consistently reproducible. Good experiments allow scientists to assess the accuracy of the predictions they made based on their hypotheses and accordingly determine whether the hypotheses themselves are supported or rejected by the data.

Thought experiments follow a similar model. Like empirical experiments, thought experiments isolate particular variables in order to study the relationship between them. This generally takes the form of creating a hypothetical situation in which all of the parameters of the experiment are set by the philosopher in order to limit consideration to the specific decisions or phenomena being studied. The purpose of this is generally to understand how something would be in an ideal case, free from the confines of circumstance, so that decisions themselves can be isolated from their circumstances and general statement of principle can be made. These statements of principle, like predictions from hypotheses, are then tested with further experiments to find circumstances in which they do not hold or to show that they do hold in cases where they were previously believed not to. To see an example of this, check out my series of posts on the Trolley Problem/Surgeon Problem (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3).

These two types of experiment compliment each other well because the things thought experiments are good for, making falsifiable predictions and assessing the implications of facts and principles on real-world circumstances, are the same things empirical experiments do poorly. Because empirical researchers face a tradeoff between internal and external validity, the most internally conclusive experiments are the ones that require the most conceptualization to put in context and evaluate. Similarly, empirical research provides a way for philosophers to determine if the assumptions on which they construct their theories are consistent with what we “know” about how the world works and human behavior. Neither type is useful without the other, and everyone would do well to become familiar with both.

It is not a coincidence that many of the greatest thinkers in the history of humanity were both scientists and philosophers. Many of humanity’s greatest achievement have come from people who were willing and able to harness the analytical and predictive power of both disciplines and use them in tandem. It is vitally important that scientists have a working knowledge of philosophy and analytical thinking, and that philosophers appreciate empirical research and the sciences. In a society that tends to sort people by academic discipline and force them to specialize early, there is perhaps no rarer but more vital skill than that of thinking across disciplines and recognizing that knowledge is most powerful when it is most complete.

——

This brings us to the conclusion of my blog on thought experiments. Thank you to everyone who has read, commented, and given me feedback; I sincerely hope that you have enjoyed reading my posts as much as I have enjoyed writing them. When I started this blog, I had to chose something to put under the title at the top of the page. I settled on the quasi-official motto of western philosophy: “the unexamined life is not worth living.” I believe very strongly that thought experiments are an excellent tool for this kind of critical examination, and I am glad to have been able to share this tool with you over the course of the last several weeks.

Standard

2 thoughts on “Thought Experiments and Empirical Experiments (2/2)

  1. kmm6978 says:

    One of the best posts you have made to date. I think you have articulated one of the greatest frustrations of our college process, that it is vital to have an amalgamation of analytic and synthetic though pervasively through all disciplines.

    It is with the heaviest of hearts that I hit these keys, as I know that the bond we have forged will soon come to an end (as far as scholastic interaction goes ;]).

    It is unquestionable that you are in possession of one of the most politically and intellectually advanced minds of our generation. I know that wherever you go, and whatever you do, you will be extremely successful in your endeavors. You have my highest respect, and I wish you well. Keep in touch!

Leave a Reply