Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019;196(9):3841-3867.
doi: 10.1007/s11229-017-1628-0. Epub 2017 Nov 30.

A Plea for Minimally Biased Naturalistic Philosophy

Affiliations
Free PMC article

A Plea for Minimally Biased Naturalistic Philosophy

Andrea Polonioli. Synthese. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Naturalistic philosophers rely on literature search and review in a number of ways and for different purposes. Yet this article shows how processes of literature search and review are likely to be affected by widespread and systematic biases. A solution to this problem is offered here. Whilst the tradition of systematic reviews of literature from scientific disciplines has been neglected in philosophy, systematic reviews are important tools that minimize bias in literature search and review and allow for greater reproducibility and transparency. If naturalistic philosophers wish to reduce bias in their research, they should then supplement their traditional tools for literature search and review by including systematic methodologies.

Keywords: Cognitive bias; Heuristics; Methodology; Narrative review; Naturalism; Systematic review.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Alexander J. Experimental philosophy: An introduction. London: Polity; 2012.
    1. Andow J. Thin, fine and with sensitivity: a metamethodology of intuitions. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 2016;7(1):105–125.
    1. Arkes HR, Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R. How bad is incoherence? Decision. 2016;3(1):20–39.
    1. Arkes HR, Gonzalez-Vallejo C, Bonham AJ, Kung Y-H, Bailey N. Assessing the merits and faults of holistic and disaggregated judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2010;23:250–270.
    1. Arkes HR, Shaffer VA, Dawes RM. Comparing holistic and disaggregated ratings in the evaluation of scientific presentations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2006;19:429–439.

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback