Exactly what it says! Some sort of experiment, i.e. an intervention with observed consequences, is set up but just in the mind. In the physical/natural sciences, logic and maths doing this in imagination can be enough to prove or refute some theory. Things are rarely that clear cut in the psychosocial world so a lot of what I now call “abstracteeism”: woolly postulations being passed off as true thought experiments waste too much of our time and journal (and whole book) space. However, I also believe that we don’t see enough fairly rigorous thought experiments in our field. Some might make it clear that it’s not worth doing the empirical experiment as too many alternative explanations of the findings are possible. (My position about pretty much all randomised controlled trials of psychosocial interventions!), others may make clear the challenges that would be involved in conducting the experiment well.
Details #
Thought experiments can sometimes lead to simulations before any substantive empirical experiment and these, even more than pure thought experiments, can throw crucial light on ideas in our field and are tragically rarely conducted. Why is that?
Try also #
Abstracteeism
Epistemology
Evidence
Evidence base
Simulation
Chapters #
Probably should have been in Chapter 10 A ‘snapshot’ review: Constructive critique as a core practitioner skill !
Online resources #
None likely!
Dates #
First created 23.viii.24.
