This contribution examines Miscevic’s defence against restrictionist X-phi, based on his view that thought experiments exhibit a large number of typical stages. On Miscevic’s view, the epistemic threats identified by proponents of the negative program in X-phi may be countered or ameliorated in various ways at various stages. I argue that the defence he offers is insufficient to counter the arguments by in particular Machery.

Häggqvist and Wikforss (2018) argued that in the case of so-called natural kind terms, semantic externalism relies on an untenable metaphysics of kinds: microessentialism. They further claimed that this metaphysics fails, for largely empirical reasons. Focussing on the case of water, Hoefer and Martí European Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 9, (2019) rejoin that suitably construed, microessentialism is correct. I argue that their defence of microessentialism fails.

In the last decade, philosophers have offered a number of proposals concerning the logical form of hypothetical cases, or thought experiments, as these are used for purposes of testing philosophical claims. In this paper, I discuss what the desiderata for a formal proposal are. Employing a comparison with general philosophy of science, I suggest that one important desideratum is to highlight recurrent patterns of disagreement surrounding cases. I advocate a proposal in propositional modal logic which, I argue, better meets this desideratum than competing proposals. I also sketch how this proposal may be extended into more fine grained analyses, employing counterfactual conditionals yet avoiding certain problems due to so-called "deviant realizations".

The article examines the role of natural kinds in semantic theorizing, which has largely been conducted in isolation from relevant work in science, metaphysics, and philosophy of science. We argue that the Kripke–Putnam account of natural kind terms, despite recent claims to the contrary, depends on a certain metaphysics of natural kinds; that the metaphysics usually assumed—micro-essentialism—is untenable even in a ‘placeholder’ version; and that the currently popular homeostatic property cluster theory of natural kinds is correct only to an extent that fails to vindicate the Kripke–Putnam account. This undermines the metasemantics required for anti-descriptivist semantics.

In this critical notice I raise a couple of questions concerning Mölder's ambitious metaphysics, aimed at underpinning his Ascription Theory. I argue that some of the points he takes to depend on this metaphysics are in fact independent of it. I further question whether the relation between the mental and the physical is quite so unlike relations between special science entities and physics as Mölder suggests. Finally I relate Mölder's Ascription Theory in very compressed form and suggest that although its loosening of the strictures on what evidence an ascriber of mental attitudes may avail herself of, it is not clear that the theory can really do without rationality considerations of the sort emphasised by Davidson and Dennett – at least if it is to count as a species of interpretivism.

Thought experiments in philosophy and science have a lot in common. However, this chapter focuses on thought experiments in philosophy only. It provides an overview of the results that discussion has achieved and point out which issues are still open. In metaphilosophy, thought experimentation is also often referred to as "the method of cases"; and there sometimes seems to be an assumption in metaphilosophy that there is a common methodological role that thought experiments play throughout philosophy. The chapter explores that this assumption is mistaken, by pointing out two other methodological roles that thought experiments play in philosophy. However, there is one role which seems to be the most interesting from a metaphilosophical point of view, namely the use of thought experiments as counterexamples or "alethic refuters". The chapter discusses several attempts at reconstructing the logical structure of such refutations by thought experiments. It concludes with a few general remarks about the prospects of metaphilosophy and modal epistemology.

In The Philosophy of Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), Tim Williamson has offered a sophisticated account of thought experiments and of modal epistemology. More recently, he has also engaged in a variant of the so-called ‘expertise defence’ of traditional philosophical methodology. In this paper I argue that if Williamson’s account of thought experiments and of modal epistemology is right, this seriously undermines his version of the expertise defence.