Thought Experiments

In a recent Scientific American, I came across an article with the title "Thought Experiments." I had read that Einstein had come up with his Theory of Relativity by using "thought experiments." Of course, his theory has been deemed correct by actual experiments. Until then, it was simply a theory.

What baffled me though about the article was the subheading which was "Some philosophers are doing more than thinking deeply. They are also conducting scientific experiments relating to the nature of free will and of good and evil." What!? This sounded like something I would read in magazine about philosophy or religion, not in a magazine devoted to science.

In the first place, a "thought experiment" is not science, but speculation perhaps bolstered by mathematics as in Einstein's case. This is the kind of thing philosophers, science fiction writers, futurists, prophets and other imaginative thinkers have been doing for thousands of years. One notable "thought experiment" is Rene Descartes' reasoning from "I think therefore I am" as the one irrefutable assumption to several other conclusions, all of which were refuted by later philosophers.

As to the "nature of free will," I believe psychologists have been doing actual experiments on this for some time without coming to any definite conclusions. Philosophers have debated "free will" to death. And then when the author throws in "good and evil" in the mix, these terms have no intrinsic meaning. Every person on this planet has a different idea of what is good and what is evil.

I read further in the article and find that persons the author calls "experimental philosophers" team up with psychologists and publish in journals. "They have spawned hundreds of papers and come up with surprising results and some strong opinions on every side." Note that he does not say that they have come up with any actual scientific facts.

The article blabs on this fashion for three pages, mixing "thought experiments" with some actual studies in psychology in this strange manner. He concludes with "... it can sometimes be helpful, and occasionally indispensable, to have a better understanding of the cognitive processes that give rise to these beliefs." Duh!

Shame on you Scientific American for printing such nonsense.