Experimental Philosophy and Joshua Knobe

Joshua Knobe suggests in What is Experimental Philosophy that philosophical arguments are often structured on "claims about people's intuitions." These claims, although not measured empirically, become the foundation of general theories. Experimental philosophy tests these claims with empirical methods. As an artist, especially as an artist with a practice in performance and community arts, I wonder what is experimental art? Does experimental philosophy offer some insight into foundational art claims that can be reconsidered and methods to do so? 

The first question Knobe asks is from Saul Kripke's story of the "man who discovered the incompleteness of arithmetic." The question is one of identity. If a man takes the credit for another's work, assigning his name to it, does the name then refer to the one that steals or to the one that did the work? The answer to this question varied depending on the part of the world it was asked. The difference in responses could be differences in valuing the work over ownership and individual fame. If the work is valued, the performer is linked to the action regardless of the mistaken name. If the name and fame is valued over the work, the one credited "owns" the work. The credit can be taken because the work is seen as product, something that can be exchanged for fame and power, not a process that cannot be separated from its performer and a process that empowers its performer and those understanding and continuing the work.  The question Knobe asks is one of unethical ownership. The answers cause me to rethink creative production in a society based on ownership. How is ownership shaping and limiting our creative responses to global concerns?

The second question is one of intent. If one aims solely for one result, regardless of the known disregarded cost or benefit of other additional outcomes, does one receive the credit for the benefit and/ or the blame for the damage of the additional outcomes? As an artist concerned with my addition to human material over-production, the answer to this question is pertinent. The answers seem to reveal that when judging others we blame them for the bad results, while not giving them credit for good results. This seems the opposite of our self-judgment where we are eager to take credit for good results, and reluctant to take responsibility for the bad. Still more interesting is that negative results challenge us to "learn", change behavior, and grow while positive results inflate our egos and encourage less awareness and less caution in future actions.  The trail of changes left in our wake, intentional and unintentional, still make the same difference. Perhaps the answers to this question suggest we should focus less on our goodness and more on these changes. Justifying our goodness may be just what is blinding us to witnessing what is happening. 

The last question has to do with free will. In stories where the characters had absolutely no free will, are they still morally responsible? Most answered yes. In a time when the news media reveals moral failings hourly and art production is full of fantasies of freedom from moral restrain, why do we cling to our free will and its partner moral choice? Does free will somehow equate being? If we are predetermined do we exist? Do we fear free will without morality? If I do not question or create as an expression of free will in an undetermined exploration of the world, questions one and two do not matter. In my experience those things I can least question, are the questions that challenge my most defended positions, positions that have fallen out of sync with my experience. I am not willing to yield my belief in free will or my ability to attempt moral choices, but Knobe's questions show me my resistance and a need to ask why.