In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

Jia Tolentino

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Monk JusticeKieran Setiya

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Philosophy within Its Proper Bounds 
by Edouard Machery.
Oxford, 224 pp., £40, August 2017, 978 0 19 880752 0
Show More
Show More

‘If​ universities had been an invention of the second half of the 20th century,’ Michael Dummett wondered in his last book, The Nature and Future of Philosophy (2010), ‘would anyone have thought to include philosophy among the subjects that they taught and studied?’ Dummett’s anxiety wasn’t whether philosophy could survive at a time when the value of a university education is gauged in increasingly reductive, economic terms. He was worried about the status of philosophy as an intellectual enterprise. ‘Philosophy is a sector in the quest for truth,’ he wrote, and if it ‘makes no progress, it is not worth wasting any time on’. Yet he remained optimistic, ending the book with the prediction that philosophers will ‘settle what is surely the most important question, whether there are rational grounds for believing in the existence of God … in the lifetimes of our great-grandchildren’. Not long to wait.

Others are less sanguine. The history of philosophy can be cause for dismay. We are, after all, still asking questions Plato asked 2500 years ago. What is knowledge? What is justice? What is a name? In the ‘linguistic turn’ of the mid-20th century, such inquiries were interpreted as calling for investigation of the meanings of words: ‘knowledge’, ‘justice’, ‘reference’. But philosophy has since reclaimed its essentialist roots. When contemporary philosophers ask ‘What is knowledge?’ they are interested in knowledge itself; studying the verb ‘knows’ may or may not be a step along the way. Their answers take the form of what the metaphysician Cian Dorr calls ‘identifications’, attempts to define the essential nature of knowledge by completing the Platonic formula: ‘To know something is …’ Is knowledge true belief acquired by reliable means? Is it truth that one can justify to oneself? Is it something else altogether?

There is nothing radically new in such philosophers’ methodology. They still test their answers against hypothetical cases. When Plato asks, in the Republic, whether justice is a virtue, he introduces one of the most famous thought experiments of all. In the myth of Gyges, a shepherd finds a ring that can make its wearer invisible. Who would not murder, rape, and steal, we are asked, if they could easily get away with it? According to Thrasymachus, in Plato’s dialogue, the idea of justice as a virtue is a scam that the powerful perpetrate on the weak. Socrates spends the rest of the Republic arguing that he is wrong.

The thought experiments in recent philosophy are no different in kind, though they are sometimes more bizarre:

While he sleeps, a man is subjected to unsolicited neurosurgery. A device is inserted into his brain that will influence his thoughts so that he has spontaneous true beliefs about the ambient temperature. He has no idea that this is happening. Some time the next day he thinks to himself: ‘It is 74 degrees.’ Does his belief amount to knowledge?

A woman whose body is snow white grows up in a black and white room, reading book after book about the physics and psychology of colour perception. On the day she finally leaves the room, she sees a ripe tomato and is stunned. Has she learned something new?

Walking by a railway, you see a runaway train carriage hurtling down a steep hill towards five people, who are trapped on the tracks. You notice a lever that will switch the carriage onto another track, on which a single person is trapped, as mysteriously as the other five. The carriage is sure to kill whomever it hits. Should you pull the lever or not?

Reflection on these episodes of pedagogic flash fiction has not produced consensus on the questions they are taken to address. Is knowledge anything more than reliable belief? Does the world transcend its scientific description? Is it wrong to kill an innocent person in order to save a greater number? Yet despite this apparent lack of progress, professional philosophers continue to draw their salaries. Is the idea of philosophy as a sector in the quest for truth, like justice for Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic, nothing but a scam?

The surprise is not that the challenge should be made – ‘As long as there has been such a subject as philosophy,’ Bernard Williams once pointed out, ‘there have been people who hated and despised it’ – but that it so often comes from within the discipline itself. The fifth column has included Hume, who instructed us to ‘commit to the flames’ any work of inquiry that ventures beyond the bounds of quantitative and experimental reasoning; A.J. Ayer, who insisted that much past and present philosophy is unverifiable nonsense; and, more recently, Daniel Dennett, who indicts the discipline as largely ‘self-indulgent, clever play’. In almost every case, the philosopher who criticises philosophy wants his colleagues to redirect their intellectual efforts away from the ineffable, nonsensical or confused towards more worthwhile endeavours; a methodological revolution is announced, through which philosophy will make progress at last. The latest to make the attempt is Edouard Machery, in his astute and elegant book Philosophy within Its Proper Bounds.

Machery is a leading figure in ‘experimental philosophy’, a movement that approaches philosophical questions with the tools and results of empirical psychology. In particular, experimental philosophers have been interested in people’s actual responses to philosophical thought experiments, and how those responses vary from country to country, or between people who speak different languages, or have different ages and genders, or when cases are presented in different ways. They have found a disquieting degree of variation. The upshot, as Machery sees it, is that philosophers should abstain from the method of cases. Hypothetical scenarios are no way to test identifications: for instance, we are in no position to say whether the man with the thermometer in his head knows the temperature or not, so his imaginary case is no test of the equation between knowledge and reliable belief. Since we have no other way to confirm identifications, we should stop making them. ‘We cannot know whether pain is identical to some complicated neural state,’ Machery writes, nor can we know ‘what knowledge really is’ or ‘what makes an action morally permissible’. No more footnotes to Plato: philosophers must find more productive things to do.

What are we up to when we ask what is true in some contrived scenario? Whatever it is, you can observe it in yourself as you look back at the examples above. Does the man know that the temperature is 74 degrees? When she looks at the tomato, does the snow-white scientist learn something new? Should you pull the lever, so that the train switches tracks? When philosophers explain how we answer such questions, some say we rely on mysterious intuitions; others think it’s a matter of linguistic competence or a priori judgment. As Machery argues, none of these accounts is right. Our reactions to thought experiments are simply beliefs. They have no special connection with linguistic or conceptual mastery and they often draw on empirical background knowledge. The judgments we make in philosophical cases are continuous with the judgments we make in everyday life.

If that is so, the defensive philosopher will complain, you can’t object to the method of cases without inviting scepticism about ordinary judgment. But Machery is no sceptic. As he sees it, the problem with the method of cases is that it takes our ordinary power of judgment into extraordinary realms. His concern isn’t with everyday beliefs but with unusual cases. It is understandable that philosophers focus on such cases, since competing theories of knowledge or morality often agree about more mundane examples. It’s the unusual cases that hold out the promise of a test. For Machery, though, the promise is deceptive. Here, his critique rests on two lines of evidence. First, different groups give systematically different verdicts on philosophical thought experiments, which sometimes diverge from the consensus among philosophers. Second, a single individual may give different verdicts on a case depending on how it is presented to them.

Machery patiently catalogues the pertinent empirical data. Among the striking results is that verdicts on the ‘trolley problem’ – what to do about that runaway train carriage – vary from the US to Russia to China: 81 per cent of Americans think you should pull the lever, killing one and saving five; only 63 per cent of Russians and just over half of Chinese participants agree. The vast majority of Tibetan monks think it permissible not merely to pull the lever, but to push someone in front of the train carriage, ending their life, if that is the only way to save the others. Reflecting on these results, along with the divergent responses to examples involving knowledge and reference, Machery concludes that ‘there is no reason to prefer one of the answers elicited by cases to the other; as a result, we should suspend judgment.’

This is a puzzling argument. ‘Philosophers have not taken the measure of how much disagreement there is about these cases,’ Machery complains. But we see plenty of disagreement in the seminar room. Machery doesn’t explain why disagreement about cases should be more disturbing than any other kind of disagreement between philosophers, as when they make conflicting claims about the nature of knowledge, the mind-body problem or the demands of ethical life. The discipline is, after all, nothing without disagreement: when a question is settled to the satisfaction of all, philosophy leaves it behind. If disagreement is disturbing, we do not need the detour through empirical psychology to see that we are in trouble: pointing to the state of philosophical theory should be enough.

In fact, it isn’t clear that we must respond to disagreement, whether it’s about cases or theories, by giving up our own beliefs. Predictably, this too is something about which philosophers disagree. ‘The leading views support the claim that, when philosophical cases elicit disagreement among epistemic peers, they ought to suspend judgment,’ Machery asserts, but he provides no survey data to back this up. Leading or not, it is a common view among philosophers that reasonable conviction can survive the disagreement of peers. Such disagreements are often asymmetrical. One side has reasoned well or exercised good judgment; the other has not. Naturally, both sides will think their reasoning was sound, and there may be no independent test to determine who is wrong. But the absence of such a test doesn’t prevent us from maintaining that those who reasoned well should stick to their guns and insist that they are right. The enlightened may be unable to prove their view to the satisfaction of the unenlightened. But so it goes. Reasoning well is one thing, persuading your critics is another.

One of the most notorious revolutions in philosophical method was logical positivism, channelled into Language, Truth and Logic by a young A.J. Ayer. Ayer proclaimed the verification principle: that only statements open to empirical verification can be meaningful. It didn’t take long for critics to notice that the verification principle cannot be empirically verified. Likewise, Machery may believe that we should suspend judgment in the face of stubborn, intelligent, well-informed disagreement, but it won’t take long for critics to point out that this claim is subject to stubborn, intelligent, well-informed disagreement.

So much for inconsistency with others. Some of the most striking discoveries of experimental philosophers concern the extent of our own personal inconsistencies, as we respond differently to the same case when it is presented in different ways. If we are asked about the man with the thermometer in his head after being presented with a case in which knowledge is clearly demonstrated, we are likely to deny that he knows the temperature. If by contrast we are first asked whether someone knows the temperature when they get it right on the basis of a lucky guess, we are likely to give the thermometer man more credit. Similarly, how we respond to the trolley problem is affected by the details of the version we are presented with. It also depends on what we have been doing just before being presented with the case. After five minutes of watching Saturday Night Live, Americans are three times more likely to agree with the Tibetan monks that it is permissible to push someone in front of a speeding train carriage in order to save five. And there are ‘framing effects’: with the trolley problem, for example, we are more likely to conclude that you should pull the lever when the case is described in terms of saving lives, not causing deaths.

There are delicate issues here about what counts as superficial framing and what could make an ethical difference. At one point Machery suggests that in cases where you are told you could save someone’s life it is a matter of mere framing whether they are involved in an unforeseeable emergency or threatened by a chronic situation such as famine, or whether the person who will die is related to you or not. It doesn’t take great imagination to see that these changes potentially matter. But Machery is no fan of reckless imagining. ‘The influence of superficial features on judgment shows that it is a bad idea to hone one’s moral sense against works of literature,’ he remarks in passing. ‘Their rich narrative content is likely to lead judgments astray.’

Machery claims that ‘philosophers only occasionally consider different versions of the same case to sieve any influence their superficial content may have, and they never do it systematically.’ He is largely right about what appears in print. But I worry that he has been taken in by the conventional image of philosophy as armchair reflection. The reality is that most philosophers inhabit a crowded agora: the department lounge or common room in which dozens of cases, with variations major and minor, are tossed back and forth. Not systematic, perhaps, and not deliberately designed to eliminate order and framing effects, but well suited to doing so. Our practices should no doubt improve, but the change required is incremental, not revolutionary. The method of cases will survive.

‘It​ is always a significant question to ask about any philosopher: what is he afraid of?’ Iris Murdoch wrote in The Sovereignty of Good (1970). In Machery’s case, my guess is that he is afraid of wasting time. He wants philosophers to give up on questions they don’t know how to answer and take up questions they do. He thinks we should be in the business of analysing concepts understood as psychological artefacts. We can study default beliefs with the tools of empirical psychology. For instance, Machery finds that people tend to make the unfounded inference that because something is universal it must therefore be innate, and that because it is innate it must be functional. Our cognitive and linguistic processes exploit false information. If you protest that this is psychology, not philosophy, Machery has a quick response: ‘We should not be too concerned with whether an issue is philosophical or not, just with whether it is interesting!’ But for some of us, whether a project counts as philosophy is an existential question: livelihoods are at stake.

Machery accuses other philosophers of ‘historical myopia’ for drawing lines between empirical psychology and philosophy. He urges a return to David Hume and William Whewell, for whom the two fields were one. ‘For much of the history of philosophy,’ Machery writes, ‘philosophers could not have imagined their philosophising as separate from not only mathematics, but also the empirical sciences.’ He goes on to make an alarming conjecture: ‘Perhaps because they felt threatened by the apparently unstoppable growth of the sciences, philosophers started carving their own kingdom, far removed from scientists’ interests and methods.’

It would take a lot of historical spadework to support this portrayal of philosophers fleeing from science in search of intellectual and academic turf. Machery does not provide it. He is right that philosophy was not originally distinct from science: it was the search for systematic understanding of the world. In Western philosophy, this conception survived, more or less, through the 17th century, when the natural sciences were transformed by such philosophers as Bacon and Descartes. ‘Philosophy’ became a term for the inquiries left behind when disciplines work out their proprietary methods. Thus psychology hived off in the 19th century, with William James and Wilhelm Wundt picking up on threads in Hume. Economics did the same with hints from Adam Smith, and sociology with Comte and Marx in the 19th century and then Durkheim at the beginning of the 20th. Computer science and linguistics established themselves outside philosophy around the 1950s. In each case, the origins of these disciplines were philosophical; they ceased to be philosophy when they gained methodological traction.

This conventional narrative is in need of refinement. As it stands, it is too simple and too linear. Where do history and anthropology fit in? What about the interpretative study of literature, music and visual art, some of whose methodologies may count as philosophical? There is a need for careful reflection – philosophical reflection – on the very idea of a distinctive method. But whatever the details, the result is a Catch-22: as soon as philosophy makes progress by means that constitute a discipline, it is no longer philosophy.

This creates a problem of public relations. But the issues with Machery’s circumscription of inquiry are more fundamental. To dismiss questions we don’t know how to answer is deeply anti-philosophical. Indeed, if you had to say what philosophy is today, a first approximation would be: the systematic inquiry into questions that seem profound but are as yet unanswerable, in that we haven’t identified methods for addressing them that elicit rational convergence. We shouldn’t overstate our epistemic frailty. If rational belief can survive peer disagreement, as I have suggested, then an inability to convince others is consistent with knowing the truth oneself. And new disciplines are bound to emerge as philosophy moves forward. Philosophers should not be embarrassed by these things; instead, they should spread the word. The patience to ask and to keep asking questions, without the assurance of agreement or the availability of methods apt to elicit it, is the philosopher’s gift. It is an expression of intellectual hope, and the repudiation of philosophy is a counsel of despair.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.