Analytic Philosophy is the more popular philosophy amongst academicians at present which boost FDP and PH's arrogance where they crutch upon it to put down the views of those who oppose them, e.g. philosophical antirealists and moral realists/objectivists.
However, FDP and PH are so ignorant their grounding on philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion and their traditional analytical philosophy approach is grounded on intuition.
Here is the supporting view as exposed by Experiment Philosophy - X-Phi:
viewtopic.php?p=743466#p743466
So there are two intuitions in consideration:Experimental philosophy (X-Phi) challenges traditional analytic philosophy in several significant ways, primarily by questioning the methods and assumptions underlying philosophical inquiry. Here's a breakdown of how X-Phi critiques and diverges from traditional analytic approaches:
1. Critique of Reliance on Intuitions
Traditional analytic philosophy often relies on intuitions of philosophers as evidence for or against philosophical arguments. For instance:
Philosophers use thought experiments (e.g., Gettier cases in epistemology, the Trolley Problem in ethics) to elicit intuitions about key concepts like knowledge, morality, or identity.
X-Phi's Challenge:
X-Phi questions the universality and reliability of these intuitions [of analytic philosophers] by empirically investigating how they vary across individuals, cultures, and contexts.
Studies show that intuitions are often shaped by cultural background, cognitive biases, and framing effects, suggesting that they are not as foundational or objective as traditional philosophers assume.
2. Emphasis on Empirical Methods
Traditional analytic philosophy is heavily conceptual and argumentative, relying on a priori reasoning, logical analysis, and introspection.
X-Phi's Challenge:
X-Phi introduces empirical methods—surveys, experiments, and statistical analysis—to gather data about people's intuitions and judgments.
This empirical approach shifts the focus from purely abstract reasoning to testing hypotheses about philosophical concepts in real-world or controlled experimental settings.
3. Democratization of Philosophy
In traditional analytic philosophy, the intuitions of professional philosophers often dominate discussions, implicitly assuming that these intuitions are more refined or valid.
X-Phi's Challenge:
X-Phi argues that the intuitions of non-philosophers are equally important, especially if philosophy aims to understand concepts and principles that apply universally.
By studying intuitions across diverse populations, X-Phi broadens the scope of philosophical inquiry and challenges the elitism of relying solely on expert judgments.
- 1. intuitions of philosophers [traditional analytic philosophy]
2. intuitions of non-philosophers
This is merely on an armchair basis, i.e. mental masturbation based on intellectual analysis without reference to what is going on in the field and considerations of non-philosophers.
2. intuitions of non-philosophers
In addition to intellectual analysis, X-Phi takes into account the intuitions of non-philosophers.
"X-Phi introduces empirical methods—surveys, experiments, and statistical analysis—to gather data about people's intuitions and judgments.
This empirical approach shifts the focus from purely abstract reasoning to testing hypotheses about philosophical concepts in real-world or controlled experimental settings."
Thus the X-PHI approach is more realistic.
As such, posters like FDP, Peter Holmes and others are fanatical with Analytic Philosophy who are arrogantly put down others from a majority voice, must take note their grounding is based on an illusion and intuitions thus of no substance and credibility in terms of FS credibility and Objectivity. FS = Framework and System.
Discuss??
Views??
