Many thought experiments are used to probe theoretical statements. One crucial strategy for doing this, or so I will argue, is the following. A TE reveals an inconsistency in part of our previously held, sometimes empirically well-established, theoretical statements. A TEer or her critic then proposes a resolution in the form of a conjecture, a hypothesis that merits further investigation. To explore this characterisation of the epistemic function of such TEs, I clarify the nature of the inconsistencies revealed by TEs, (...) and how TEs reveal and resolve them. I argue that this can be done without settling the question of which cognitive processes are involved in performing a TE; be they propositional or non-propositional. The upshot is that TEs’ reliability, like real experiments, is to be found, in part, in their replicability by the epistemic community, not in their cognitive underpinnings. (shrink)

Scenarios and pathways, as defined in the SSP-RCP framework, are central to recent climate research and the latest IPCC report. Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) offer a small set of alternative futures through qualitative narratives and quantitative projections. A key use of SSP-based scenarios is mitigation analysis, presenting decision-makers with a seemingly neutral set of policy options. However, all SSPs assume continuous global economic growth (GEGA) through 2100, effectively narrowing the solution space and embedding value-laden assumptions that challenge the IPCC’s claim (...) to policy neutrality. Post-growth scholars contest GEGA, but post-growth mitigation scenarios have yet to be fully integrated into this scenario framework. From a philosophy of value-laden science perspective, I argue that this integration is necessary. I propose two approaches to do so, demonstrating how inclusion of post-growth scenarios aligns with a diversity criterion — ultimately enhancing the framework’s objectivity and strengthening the IPCC’s policy neutrality. (shrink)