The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has just published an entry on experimental moral philosophy, by Mark Alfano and Don Loeb, that is impressively comprehensive. In addition to discussing problems specific to moral philosophy, the entry also details limitations and problems that might be raised against any experimental philosophical research in other normative domains, such as aesthetics. It is truly valuable resource.
(Admittedly, I might be biased because the entry cites an experimental work on the concept of happiness that Jonathan Phillips, Sven Nyholm, and I conducted. (Jonathan was undisputably the mastermind behind this work.))
My only complaint about the entry is regarding this sentence: “The most common measure of effect size is Cohen’s d”. There are, as I am sure the authors are aware, many different measures of effect size depending on the type(s) of variables used and the associations tested. The sentence, as stated, is mildly misleading. Perhaps the authors are commenting on the fact that within experimental moral philosophy, many studies involve comparisons of means between groups, and so Cohen’s d is the most common measure of effect size in this domain.
Related Research Output:
Jonathan Phillips, Sven Nyholm, and Shen-yi Liao (in press). The Good in Happiness. In: Tania Lombrozo, Shaun Nichols, and Joshua Knobe (eds.), Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy 1 (New York: Oxford University Press).