Premium
Show Me the Argument: Empirically Testing the Armchair Philosophy Picture
Author(s) -
Ashton Zoe,
Mizrahi Moti
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
metaphilosophy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.475
H-Index - 35
eISSN - 1467-9973
pISSN - 0026-1068
DOI - 10.1111/meta.12279
Subject(s) - argumentation theory , argument (complex analysis) , epistemology , inductive reasoning , deductive reasoning , philosophy of science , philosophy , a priori and a posteriori , point (geometry) , mathematics , chemistry , biochemistry , geometry
Many philosophers subscribe to the view that philosophy is a priori and in the business of discovering necessary truths from the armchair. This paper sets out to empirically test this picture. If this were the case, we would expect to see this reflected in philosophical practice. In particular, we would expect philosophers to advance mostly deductive, rather than inductive, arguments. The paper shows that the percentage of philosophy articles advancing deductive arguments is higher than those advancing inductive arguments, which is what we would expect from the vantage point of the armchair philosophy picture. The results also show, however, that the percentages of articles advancing deductive arguments and those advancing inductive arguments are converging over time and that the difference between inductive and deductive ratios is declining over time. This trend suggests that deductive arguments are gradually losing their status as the dominant form of argumentation in philosophy.