Peg Tittle - What If...: Collected Thought Experiments in Philosophy

T his book was initially conceived as a handy reference for philosophers of all kinds (That thing about Mary, the neuroscientist whos color-blind or somethingwhere is it? whos it by?not to worryMarys in here. Sos the brain in a vat, the bat, the violinist, the teletransporter ).

However, it soon became apparent what a great introduction to philosophy this would be, both for ordinary people (think of it as gourmet food for thoughtwhen TV becomes junk food that doesnt really satisfy, try a few of these) and for students (yes, they would be your nonordinary people): thought experiments are such delightful door openersand you can walk around for hours behind those doors and not be bored, the detail is so rich (and thats before you get lost). And since it seems that those working in ethics are particularly fond of thought experiments, the book may be a good supplement in ethics courses as well as introductory philosophy courses.

In fact, this book may, more than traditional philosophy texts, achieve some standard pedagogical objectives: awaken intellectual curiosity, because each thought experiment presents a puzzling, and sometimes addictively intriguing, situation that demands a response; demonstrate that philosophy is valuable, because many of these thought experiments address a genuine problem in life, despite appearing to be quite off-the-wall; and initiate students into the disciplined kind of thought required by philosophy, because in the course of working out their response, students will learn how to think clearly and coherently. And who knows, someone might be so intrigued by which way James walks home (see Jamess Way Home) or whether Jill knows that the political leader has been assassinated (see Harmans False Report) she or he will decide to pursue a degree in philosophy, establish a career in metaphysics or epistemology.

As for deciding what to include (and what not), rather than adhere to some particular definition, I have often used effect as my guide: if the scenario seems to serve merely to illustrate or clarify a pointthat is, people will probably read it, understand the point being made, and move onthen I have tended not to include it; however, if, for some reason, the scenario seems to be a showstopperthat is, people will probably read it, pause, reflect on it, wrestle with it, and discuss itif it seems to be truly thought-provokingthen I have tended to include it.

Since this is a book intended to be a reference, I have included the scenarios people might most expect to find in such a book, the bits and pieces philosophers have come to consider as thought experimentseven though by some definitions some of these may not actually be thought experiments.

And since the book is also intended to be a course text, I have included, along with the classics, some should-be classics. I have also tried to include a fair number from each of the many fields and time periods in philosophythough it seems thought experiments are simply far more prevalent in some fields and time periods than in others.

In the interests of keeping the book compact and affordable, I have excluded the categories of science and literature. That is to say, experiments addressing a scientific question (such as Schrdingers Cat and the many thought experiments conducted by ancient philosophers, when philosophy was early science) and experiments that appear in literary material are not included. Certainly many matters of science are philosophical in nature and many works of literature have great philosophical value (utopian and dystopian novels, for example, can be considered extended thought experiments), but I had to draw a line somewhere! For the same reason, I have severely limited the number of philosophical paradoxes Ive included.

I have used rather broad categories in the table of contents so one can see, at a glance, the breadth of the book. However, for more specific purposes, I have also organized the thought experiments by author, date, and keyword/subject (see the indexes at the back).

As for ordering the experiments within categories, rather than agonize over various equally good arrangements, I decided to order them by chronology. Readers can go wherever and whenever their curiosities take them, and instructors can select and order to fit their purposes. Hopefully, the indices at the back and the many cross-references within the commentaries will help in this regard.

While it is certainly possible, and valuable, to have fun with the thought experiments just as they appear, I have provided a short commentary for each that highlights the important elements of the experiment, summarizes the context out of which the experiment was taken, and suggests the larger context in which the experiment arises. I have also included a few thought-provoking questions of my own.

For further thought provocation, one can consult the many articles written about pretty much every thought experiment in here. A quick search in The Philosophers Index or on any of the many philosophy search websites, using the authors name and key words in the title of the experiment, should yield several inviting possibilities.

Thanks, first and foremost, to all the philosophers who came up with these delightfully engaging scenarios! Thanks also to the many people (especially reviewers, but also members of the philosophical community at large) for suggestions and feedback, including the following: Jared Bates, Indiana University Southeast; John Bouseman, Hillsborough Community College; Ron Cooper, Central Florida Community College; Robert Hood, Middle Tennessee State University; Keith Korcz, University of Louisiana at Lafayette; Augustine M. Nguyen, University of Louisville; Kelly A. Parker, Grand Valley State University; Craig Payne, Indian Hills College; Philip Pecorino, Queensborough Community College; Christopher Robertson, Washington University in St. Louis; David A. Salomon, Black Hills State University; Edward Schoen, Western Kentucky University; Samuel Thorpe, Oral Roberts University; Ted Toadvine, Emporia State University; Mike VanQuikenborne, Everett Community College; W. Steve Watson, Bridgewater College; Steve Young, McHenry County College; and David Yount, Maricopa University. Thanks, lastly, to Priscilla McGeehon and Pearson Longman.

PEG TITTLE