Abstract

The emergence of Experimental Philosophy has stirred a big debate concerning the role of empirical evidence alongside (or instead of) traditional methods of conceptual analysis. In this paper we illustrate the benefits of merging philosophy with neuroscience, using an example of research on the neural basis of norms and conventions. We argue that designing novel experiments to answer specific «philosophical» questions has several advantages compared to relying passively on neuroscientists' data. In this particular case, the data redirect attention towards topics - such as inductive reasoning - that are relatively overlooked by mainstream social neuroscience.