Here is what Reviewer #1 had to say about one of my lab's papers about explanation:
The study is motivated in part by the desire to work towards greater integration of the philosophy of science with the methods of experimental psychology.
Experimental psychology extends from the hard-nosed empirical investigation of the neural basis of sense perceptions (for example) to the utterly squishy evaluation of highly artificial constructs tested through the administration of biased questionnaires to bolster prejudices of the investigators. There is no specific degree of rigour attributable to experimental psychology as a whole, and the field suffers more than most from conceptual disparity and a failure to agree on any fundamental principles whatsoever. I am unsure why the authors think it a good idea to employ methods associated with experimental psychology to a question that seems to lie in the domain of language-focussed analytical philosophy.
Reviewer #1 is no doubt convinced that the methods of analytic philosophy do not suffer from lack of rigour, that the field suffers less than most from conceptual disparity, and that it has long since come to a consensu on fundamental principles.
Well, this reviewer certainly has demonstrated his or her bias on the subject of experimental psychology. No agreement on effects or principles? Might want to check out some textbooks on cognitive psychology or learning and memory. I also suggest that he or she read these articles:
http://www.jove.com/blog/2012/05/03/studies-show-only-10-of-published-science-articles-are-reproducible-what-is-happening
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/infinity-logic-law/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1367183/posts
Posted by: Denise Cummins | 04/26/2014 at 02:34 PM
Years ago, I criticized arm chair philosophy--what the reviewer calls "language based analytic philosophy"--on the grounds that it cannot be calibrated, is subject to order effects (in considering linguistic or other intuitions), and to selection effects. This reviewers wants to select against your paper on the grounds that it does not employ a discredited methodology.
Posted by: Robert Cummins | 04/26/2014 at 08:40 PM