Philosophical Expertise Put to the Test

The so-called expertise defence against sceptical challenges from experimental philosophy has recently come under attack: there are several studies claiming to have found direct evidence that philosophers’ judgments in thought experiments susceptible erroneous effects. In this paper, we distinguish between the customary ‘immune experts’ version of and an ‘informed version. On informed defence, argue, could be preferable those by folk even if it were true no less immune confounders than are. We present results study comparing philosophers non-philosophers (n = 484), which support defence.