Daniele Molinari

This paper argues that immersive participation is an epistemic strategy that shapes how thought experiments ("TEs") are interpreted and contested within research communities. Building on Waltonian fictionalist approaches, I argue that their focus on work worlds and fictional truths leaves the productive role of immersion in TEs underexplored. By reinterpreting Hacking's metaphor of performing a TE as acting a part in a play, I highlight three interrelated features of TEs' participatory dimension: (i) their dual nature as both scripts and performances, (ii) the alternation between onlooker and participant stances, and (iii) the public status of immersion. I illustrate this proposal through Thomson's Dying Violinist and Einstein's Chasing the Light, showing how immersive features can guide ethical judgement and expose theoretical tensions. Finally, I argue that immersion is itself open to dialectical contestation: critics can redirect or dampen a TE's immersive features in order to reshape its argumentative force. On this view, the epistemic value of immersive participation lies not in the accuracy of the experience it recreates, but in its capacity to open a shared space of contestation in which the strengths and limitations of TEs can be collectively tested.

According to Bokulich and Frappier, understanding thought experiments as Waltonian props for the imagination cannot explain their evolution, since their content is fixed by prescriptions to imagine. That is, fictional truths constrain researchers’ imagination not to imagine otherwise. I suggest that the normative dimension of imagination is more flexible than Walton claims, especially in the context of TEs. Feyerabend’s philosophy shows this by highlighting the fruitful role of violating prescriptions to imagine. I focus on the power of subjective imaginings to develop TEs-based debates. Readers of TEs are receptive researchers who rely on an initial fictional narrative to challenge the epistemic stance for which a TE was designed. This dialectical process can be framed through Waltonian notions of “work world” and “game worlds”: the intersubjective set of fictional truths provided by a prop and the subjective imaginings of participants in the game of make-believe. According to Walton, proper players create their game worlds by building on the work world and trying to minimize mismatches. However, Feyerabend’s philosophy emphasizes the importance of divergent game worlds. By violating fiction-based constraints, researchers engaged in a TE give their creative game worlds such a prominent role that they eventually evolve the work world itself.

Thought experiments are fictional narratives that widen our cognitive horizons both in the sciences and in philosophy. In the present paper we argue that they can perform this function by bringing one’s perspective into view. Despite being traditionally conceived as devices that transmit true propositions to their readers, thought experiments are also particularly apt to express a specific theoretical perspective through the use of imagination. We suggest that this is a significant epistemic feature that is often overlooked in the debate. After presenting our analysis of thought experiments (Section 2) and of the role that imagination plays in them (Section 3), we revisit Galileo Galilei’s use of imaginary cases in light of our account (Section 4). We show that the main aims of Galileo’s thought experiments are to highlight how different perspectives endorsed by fictional characters affect imagination and to invite readers to actively engage in perspectives that are different from their own. This results in a clash of perspectives which plays a crucial epistemic role (Section 5). Readers of thought experiments do not passively absorb information, but critically assess the other’s perspective. In the final part of the paper, we individuate different ways in which readers can react to thought experiments.

The current debate on literary cognitivism in the philosophy of fiction typically assumes that we can rigorously distinguish between fictional and factual, and focuses on the question of whether and how works of fiction can impart propositional knowledge to the reader. In this paper we suggest that this way of framing the debate may be problematic. We argue that works of fiction almost inevitably include a reference to the real world and that – contrary to what is usually assumed – the exchange between fiction and reality is vivid as well as potentially fruitful. We shed a new light on these complex dynamics by building on the metaphors of trade exchange and smuggling between the two worlds. While the current debate exclusively focuses on cognitively relevant goods that “officially” cross the border through “customs”, as it were, we show that exchanges between fiction and reality run deeper. Indeed, as we show, a substantial part of the cognitive impact that we derive from fiction goes “under the table” and is “smuggled” from fiction to reality. As such, it bypasses the audience’s conscious control, which in turn explains the manipulative force that fiction can exert. Smuggling takes place when cognitively relevant contents are passed on to the reader in subliminal ways, as it happens when they imprint implicit biases or prejudices, shift perspectives or subtly modify habits or patterns of behavior. By elaborating on the metaphors of trade exchange and smuggling, we aim at presenting a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the relations between fiction and reality and on the impact that imagination has on our real-world beliefs.

In the last few years, several philosophers have highlighted the social dimension of imagination. In this paper I argue that thought experiments prompt social uses of imaginings if we understand them as props in games of make-believe. In prescribing to imagine stories that develop through fictional narratives, authors of thought experiments prompt their readers to engage in the same imaginative project—at least in its salient aspects—and to endorse their conclusions. Contributions on this topic focus on cases where coordination across imaginers is immediately successful. However, this is not the end of the story. I draw attention to situations where this is not the case, as the practice of thought experimentation often proceeds through criticism, rejections, and amendments. I focus on cases where imaginers do not endorse the conclusion proposed by the author of a thought experiment and either (i) fully reject the principles of generation, (ii) draw different fictional truths from the same principles, or (iii) amend the principles. Although cases of imaginative disharmony are usually dismissed as failures, I acknowledge them as fruitful steps in the cognitive advancement achievable by thought experiments. Cooperative imaginers challenge the rules of the game in meaningful ways, which leads to enhancing fictional scenarios and framing them through different perspectives.

According to a recent philosophical claim, “works of fiction are thought experiments” (Elgin 2007: 47), though there are relevant differences, as the role of spoilers shows—they can ruin a novel but improve the understanding we can gain through a thought experiment. In the present article I will analyze the role of spoilers and argue for a more differentiated perspective on the relation between literature and thought experiments. I will start with a short discussion of different perspectives on thought experiments and argue that the mental-model view and the conception of games of make-believe are most promising for developing the present analogy. Then I will assess the similarities and differences between thought experiments and other works of fiction. I will focus on the role of spoilers and, more generally, on the foretaste context, of which they are part. This context guides readers of literary works of art to draw their attention to the literary and aesthetic quality of the text. In the case of thought experiments, on the other hand, it (i) prompts them to accept the presence of fictional elements in worldly-cognitive works and (ii) draws their attention towards cognitively relevant elements of the story. A discussion of Borges’ Pierre Menard in the last part will show that literary works of art become thought experiments if they are embedded in an appropriate foretaste context. Spoilers, thus, unveil that even works which—due to their length or plenty of detail—usually are not considered thought experiments, can perform similar cognitive functions.