How to Better X-Phi

Many readers of this blog have probably already seen the latest issue of Emotion Review, which features Nina Strohminger's review of Colin McGinn's book on disgust. There is also a terrific set of commentaries that expand on the themes prompted by Strohminger's review.

In particular, David Pizzaro's commentary is focused on the challenges of interdisciplinary research. Pizzaro rightly joins Strohminger in excoriating McGinn's data-free approach to theorizing disgust, and noting the essentiality of data to making scientific claims. Pizarro also rightly emphasizes the importance of intellectual humility in doing interdisciplinary research. Toward the end of the commentary, Pizarro writes,

Philosophers interested in empirical questions about the mind, but who have not themselves been trained in experimental methods or statistical analyses, are more likely [...] to selectively report results that support their argument [...]

I find this claim curious. Is it the case that experimental philosophers who lack formal background in experimental methods or statistical analyses are more likely to selectively report results that support their argument?

Given the recent discussions regarding replication and research practices in psychology, what can experimental philosophers do to avoid being seen by other philosophers and psychologists as p-hackers? The replication project in X-Phi is a good start. Perhaps we should be p-curving ourselves more? Perhaps we should be registering our projects on Open Science Framework?

What other measures do you think would be helpful toward a better x-phi?

Comments

[John Turri]

I think that Pizarro's commentary is astute and timely. I can't say that philosophers meeting that description are more likely to make that error (or the others errors identified in the elided parts of the quotation). Given how serious an error it is, I —like you, Shen-yi — should have liked to see some evidence for the flat-out assertion.

Similarly, Pizarro also says that psychologists "seem more likely to make sloppy, basic conceptual errors." Pizarro has more experience than me, so I take note when he says this. But, still, that's not been my experience.