Abstract

One of the most controversial methods of philosophy is the use of thought experiments. If, on the one hand, philosophers usually agree that a hypothetical reasoning or an imaginative example can refute a previously well-supported theory or hypothesis, on the other there is a strong skepticism about the use of thought experiments in Philosophy. The skepticism is reinforced by the fact that scientific thought experiments are profoundly influenced by the expectation that the outcome of a thought experiment may reflect the outcome of an actual experiment, whereas in Philosophy the use of this tool does not necessarily reflects what happens in the world. In other words, scientific thought experiments seem to have well delimited criteria, while philosophical thought experiments do not. In this work I will argue in favor of the thesis that not all thought experiments are disguised arguments, but that nevertheless they should not be considered as lacking in criteria of correction.