Blog Coordinator

Knobe's X-Phi Page

X-Phi Grad Programs

« Venues for X-Phi | Main | Two New Experimental Philosophers »

12/15/2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Shen-yi Liao

Thank you, Hamid, for continuing to follow up on this line of inquiry.

I have two suggestions:

1. You noted in your post that you want to make the data available. I think that's a great idea. I think an excellent place for it is Open Science Foundation https://osf.io/ and if you do put it there, could you please tag it "experimental philosophy" and "x-phi"?

2. I am a little hesitant about claiming that there is "uniformity" in intuitions based on these results. Rather, it seems safer to claim that there is no evidence for demographic differences in intuitions based on these results. As I am sure you know, inference based on null results is highly controversial. For one recent discussion (and references), see http://philpapers.org/rec/MACPAN . At any rate, you might want to report the observed power of these studies if you want to draw the stronger conclusion. (Though, again, see http://daniellakens.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/observed-power-and-what-to-do-if-your.html .)

Amos London

This is perhaps a bit of a long shot, but is it possible that the different results obtained by different research groups in assessing East Asian epistemic intuitions may be explained by the recent finding that the Nisbett model fits only certain sub-populations (namely, those that have historically engaged in rice farming) but not others (those that have historically farmed wheat)?
(Here's the reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24812395) Thus, in some sense, could it be that each result is valid for the population sampled, it's just that people are (inadvertantly) sampling populations that differ in key cognitive traits?

The comments to this entry are closed.

3QD Prize 2012: Wesley Buckwalter