thought-experiments

A thought experiment is an imaginative scenario designed to:

• Test philosophical claims against intuitive judgments
• Isolate variables that real-world cases confound
• Reveal hidden assumptions and commitments
• Advance inquiry where empirical evidence is unavailable
• Communicate complex philosophical points vividly

Etymology: German Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment)—originally used in physics (Galileo, Einstein) before becoming central to philosophy.

Every well-designed thought experiment has:

1. SCENARIO

A clear, precisely specified situation with explicit stipulations.

Good Scenario Properties:

• Conditions clearly stated
• Irrelevant complications removed
• Impossible scenarios made coherently imaginable
• Minimal: only include what's necessary

Bad Scenario Properties:

• Ambiguous conditions
• Unnecessary sci-fi details
• Incoherent combinations
• Kitchen-sink complexity

2. TARGET

The philosophical thesis or intuition being tested.

Examples:

• Zombies → target: physicalism
• Trolley → target: doctrine of double effect
• Gettier → target: JTB analysis of knowledge

3. INTUITION PUMP

The mechanism that generates insight—what reaction does the scenario provoke?

Types of Pumps:

• Elicit strong yes/no judgment
• Create tension between competing intuitions
• Force choice between unpalatable options
• Reveal surprising commitments

4. ISOLATION

Variables controlled and varied to isolate the relevant factor.

Design Questions:

• What factor is being isolated?
• What is held constant?
• What alternative versions test different variables?

5. IMPLICATIONS

What follows from each possible response.

Map the dialectical landscape:

• If you judge X, you're committed to Y
• If you judge not-X, you're committed to Z
• What revisions does each response require?

Step 1: Identify the Target Thesis

What claim do we want to test?

Good targets:

• General philosophical claims ("All X are Y")
• Conceptual analyses ("Knowledge is justified true belief")
• Moral principles ("Always maximize utility")

Poor targets:

• Empirical claims (use science instead)
• Vague intuitions (need to be sharpened first)

Step 2: Find the Pressure Point

Where might intuitions conflict with the thesis?

Strategies:

• Look for edge cases
• Consider extreme applications
• Ask: "What would falsify this?"
• Look for cases where the principle gives counterintuitive results

Step 3: Construct the Scenario

Design a case that cleanly isolates the pressure point.

Design Strategies:

| Strategy | Description | Example |

|----------|-------------|---------|

| Amplification | Push feature to extreme | Zombie (total absence of consciousness) |

| Isolation | Remove confounding factors | Mary's Room (only color isolated) |

| Transposition | Move feature to new context | Chinese Room (understanding → symbols) |

| Reversal | Invert usual arrangement | Inverted qualia |

| Gradual Series | Create sorites sequence | Neuron replacement |

| Fission/Fusion | Split or merge entities | Teletransportation fission |

| Impossible Isolation | Stipulate impossible separation | Zombie (physics without consciousness) |

Step 4: Specify Precisely

Remove ambiguities, stipulate relevant facts.

Key Stipulations:

• Physical details (if relevant)
• Mental states (if relevant)
• Temporal sequence
• What the subject knows/doesn't know
• What we (evaluators) are asked to judge

Step 5: Generate Variants

Create alternative versions that probe different aspects.

Variant Types:

• Change one variable at a time
• Create spectrum of cases
• Combine with other thought experiments
• Reverse stipulations

Step 6: Anticipate Responses

Map possible reactions and their implications.

For each response:

• What principle does it express?
• What other cases must you judge similarly?
• What revision does it force on original thesis?

Counterexample Generators

Purpose: Refute general claims by finding falsifying instances.

Structure: "If P, then in case C, we'd judge X. But we judge not-X. So not-P."

Examples:

• Gettier cases → refute JTB
• Zombie → refute physicalism
• Frankfurt cases → refute Principle of Alternative Possibilities

Intuition Pumps

Purpose: Evoke strong intuitive judgments that reveal commitments.

Structure: "Consider case C. Clearly, X! So we're committed to P."

Examples:

• Trolley → reveal deontological intuitions
• Experience Machine → reveal anti-hedonist intuitions
• Violinist → reveal pro-choice intuitions

Consistency Tests

Purpose: Reveal hidden commitments by showing what follows.

Structure: "You accept P. P implies Q (shown by case C). So you're committed to Q."

Examples:

• Expanding Circle → show speciesism's arbitrariness
• Veil of Ignorance → show impartiality requirements

Reductio Scenarios

Purpose: Show absurd implications of a view.

Structure: "If P, then in case C, absurd conclusion X. So not-P."

Examples:

• Utility Monster → challenge utilitarianism
• Repugnant Conclusion → challenge total utilitarianism

Bridge Cases

Purpose: Challenge binary distinctions by finding intermediate cases.

Structure: "You distinguish X and Y. But case C is neither clearly X nor Y."

Examples:

• Sorites → vagueness
• Gradual neuron replacement → personal identity

Rate thought experiments on these dimensions:

| Criterion | Question | Scale |

|-----------|----------|-------|

| Precision | Are conditions clearly specified? | 1-10 |

| Isolation | Does it isolate the target variable cleanly? | 1-10 |

| Intuition Strength | Does it provoke clear intuitive responses? | 1-10 |

| Resistance | Is it hard to escape the dilemma? | 1-10 |

| Significance | Does it matter for important debates? | 1-10 |

Score Interpretation:

• 40-50: Excellent—likely to become classic
• 30-40: Good—useful philosophical tool
• 20-30: Adequate—serves limited purpose
• Below 20: Needs significant revision

1. Begging the Question

Problem: Scenario assumes what's being tested.

Example: "Imagine consciousness without neural activity" presupposes dualism.

Fix: Stipulate in neutral terms; let the scenario do the work.

2. Science Fiction Creep

Problem: Irrelevant technological details distract.

Example: Detailed teleporter mechanism when only the outcome matters.

Fix: Minimize to essential features; use "imagine" not "build."

3. Intuition Unreliability

Problem: Strong intuition may be wrong or biased.

Example: Intuitions about trolley may reflect mere squeamishness.

Fix: Generate variants to test intuition stability; consider error theories.

4. False Precision

Problem: Scenario can't actually be specified clearly.

Example: "Imagine a being with partial consciousness."

Fix: Acknowledge limits; use multiple variants to triangulate.

5. Ignoring Implications

Problem: Not following through on what responses mean.

Example: Judging trolley cases without seeing implications for other cases.

Fix: Always map dialectical landscape explicitly.

6. Single-Case Reliance

Problem: Drawing strong conclusions from one scenario.

Example: Rejecting utilitarianism based only on Utility Monster.

Fix: Generate multiple independent tests; look for convergence.

Analysis Template

```markdown

Scenario Summary

[Brief description of the setup]

Target Thesis

[What philosophical claim it probes]

The Intuition Pump

[What reaction it's designed to evoke]

Key Stipulations

1. [Stipulation 1]
2. [Stipulation 2]
3. [Stipulation 3]

Hidden Assumptions

1. [Assumption 1—often unnoticed]
2. [Assumption 2]

Space of Responses

| Response | Implication | Proponents |

|----------|-------------|------------|

| [A] | [Implication A] | [Who takes this] |

| [B] | [Implication B] | [Who takes this] |

Variants Worth Considering

1. What if [change X]?
2. What if [change Y]?

Assessment

• Strengths: [What it illuminates]
• Weaknesses: [Where it misleads]
• Overall: [How useful is this?]

```

Output Format

```markdown

Scenario

[Precise description with stipulated conditions]

Key Stipulations

1. [Stipulation 1]
2. [Stipulation 2]
3. [Stipulation 3]

The Question

[Central philosophical question the scenario poses]

Target

[What philosophical thesis or intuition this probes]

Expected Reactions

• Response A: [One possible judgment]

- Implication: If A, then committed to [X]

• Response B: [Alternative judgment]

- Implication: If B, then committed to [Y]

Variants

| Variant | Change | What It Tests |

|---------|--------|---------------|

| [V1] | [What changes] | [Different variable] |

| [V2] | [What changes] | [Different variable] |

Dialectical Implications

[What broader conclusions follow from various responses]

```

Metaphysics

• Ship of Theseus (identity over time)
• Teletransportation (personal identity)
• Swampman (mental content)
• Zombie (consciousness)

Epistemology

• Gettier cases (knowledge analysis)
• Brain in a vat (skepticism)
• Barn facade country (reliability)
• Lottery paradox (probability)

Ethics

• Trolley problem variants (killing vs. letting die)
• Violinist (abortion)
• Experience Machine (hedonism)
• Utility Monster (utilitarianism)

Political Philosophy

• Original Position (justice)
• Drowning Child (obligations)
• Omelas (collective responsibility)

Philosophy of Mind

• Mary's Room (physicalism)
• Chinese Room (AI consciousness)
• What It's Like to Be a Bat (subjectivity)
• Inverted Qualia (functionalism)

For detailed analysis of classics, see classics.md.

This skill works well with:

• philosophical-analyst: Test positions with thought experiments
• philosophical-generator: Create novel scenarios
• symposiarch: Use as debate prompts
• devils-advocate: Stress-test with edge cases

• classics.md: Detailed analysis of canonical thought experiments
• design_templates.md: Templates and worked examples for creating new experiments