Correction to: Estimating the Reproducibility of Experimental Philosophy

Cova, Florián; Strickland, Brent; Abatista, Angela Gaia Felicita; Allard, Aurélien; Andow, James; Attie, Mario; Beebe, James R.; Berniūnas, Renatas; Boudesseul, Jordane; Colombo, Matteo; Cushman, Fiery; Díaz, Rodrigo; Dongen, Noah N. N. van; Dranseika, Vilius; Earp, Brian D.; Torres, Antonio Gaitán; Hannikainen, Ivar R.; Hernández-Conde, José V.; Hu, Wenjia; Jaquet, François; Khalifa, Kareem; Kim, Hanna; Kneer, Markus; Knobe, Joshua; Kürthy, Miklós; Lantian, Anthony; Liao, Shen‐yi; Machery, Édouard; Moerenhout, Tania; Mott, Christian; Phelan, Mark; Phillips, Jonathan; Rambharose, Navin; Reuter, Kevin; Romero, Felipe; Sousa, Paulo; Sprenger, Jan; Thalabard, Emile; Tobia, Kevin; Viciana, Hugo; Wilkenfeld, Daniel A.; Zhou, Xiang

doi:10.1007/s13164-018-0407-2

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It might therefore be that experimental philosophers are especially apt at avoiding hasty generalizations. Indeed, research found that many x-phi studies were more replicable (Cova et al 2021), contained fewer statistical reporting inconsistencies (Colombo et al 2018), and were less affected by common questionable research practices (e.g., p-hacking) than psychology studies (Stuart, Colaço, and Machery 2019). Consequently, it has been suggested that experimental philosophers may be "more sensitive to certain methodological questions, such as what counts as strong evidence for a given claim" (Cova et al 2021, 31).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hasty Generalizations Are Pervasive in Experimental Philosophy: A Systematic Analysis

Peters,

Lemeire

2023

Philos. sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists may sometimes generalize from their samples to broader populations when they have not yet sufficiently supported this generalization. Do such hasty generalizations also occur in experimental philosophy? To check, we analyzed 171 experimental philosophy studies published between 2017 and 2023. We found that most studies tested only Western populations but generalized beyond them without justification. There was also no evidence that studies with broader conclusions had larger, more diverse samples, but they nonetheless had higher citation impact. Our analyses reveal important methodological limitations of many experimental philosophy studies and suggest that philosophical training may not protect against hasty generalizations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hasty Generalizations Are Pervasive in Experimental Philosophy: A Systematic Analysis

Peters,

Lemeire

2023

Philos. sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reporting in Experimental Philosophy: Current Standards and Recommendations for Future Practice

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent replication crises in psychology and other fields have led to intense reflection about the validity of common research practices. Much of this reflection has focussed on reporting standards, and how they may be related to the questionable research practices that could underlie a high proportion of irreproducible findings in the published record. As a developing field, it is particularly important for Experimental Philosophy to avoid some of the pitfalls that have beset other disciplines. To this end, here we provide a detailed, comprehensive assessment of current reporting practices in Experimental Philosophy. We focus on the quality of statistical reporting and the disclosure of information about study methodology. We assess all the articles using quantitative methods (n = 134) that were published over the years 2013-2016 in 29 leading philosophy journals. We find that null hypothesis significance testing is the prevalent statistical practice in Experimental Philosophy, although relying solely on this approach has been criticised in the psychological literature. To augment this approach, various additional measures have become commonplace in other fields, but we find that Experimental Philosophy has adopted these only partially: 53% of the papers report an effect size, 28% confidence intervals, 1% examined prospective statistical power and 5% report observed statistical power. Importantly, we find no direct relation between an article's reporting quality and its impact (numbers of citations). We conclude with recommendations for authors, reviewers and editors in Experimental Philosophy, to facilitate making research statistically-transparent and reproducible.Rev.Phil.Psych.

show abstract

Intuitions About the Reference of Proper Names: a Meta-Analysis

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The finding that intuitions about the reference of proper names vary cross-culturally (Machery et al. Cognition 92: 1–12. 2004) was one of the early milestones in experimental philosophy. Many follow-up studies investigated the scope and magnitude of such cross-cultural effects, but our paper provides the first systematic meta-analysis of studies replicating (Machery et al. Cognition 92: 1–12. 2004). In the light of our results, we assess the existence and significance of cross-cultural effects for intuitions about the reference of proper names.

show abstract

Correction to: Estimating the Reproducibility of Experimental Philosophy

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Hasty Generalizations Are Pervasive in Experimental Philosophy: A Systematic Analysis

Hasty Generalizations Are Pervasive in Experimental Philosophy: A Systematic Analysis

Reporting in Experimental Philosophy: Current Standards and Recommendations for Future Practice

Intuitions About the Reference of Proper Names: a Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About