Left2Right Comments

Happily, David, pretty much everyone in the X-Phi movement holds views similar to yours on the role of empirical methods in philosophy. The purpose is to add a new ingredient to the mix by collecting data on what ordinary people think, instead of relying on unsubstantiated claims about intuitions. No one, as far as I know, is claiming that empirical research is anything like a replacement for philosophy as it is currently practiced.

To take one example from the Slate piece, the X-Phi claim is not that empirical researchers are uncovering new possibilities for the relationship between free will and moral responsibility that were unknown to traditional philosophers. Rather, the studies serve to undermine the relatively common claim that ordinary people naturally have incompatibilist intuitions. Similarly, the research on people's ascriptions of intentionality should serve to draw more attention to the question of whether the concept of intentional action depends on moral considerations, not to settle that question.

Links:

"What is Experimental Philosophy?" by Joshua Knobe. An article similar to the Slate piece which is geared at philosphers rather than a popular audience.

The readings for Stephen Stich's seminar in experimental philosophy, which is being taught at Rutgers this semester.

Experimental Philosophy blog; and the discussion of the Slate article at the Experimental Philosophy blog.