*By armchair I mean knowledge one can gain by not going out into the world very far. And by my title I get the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that if armchair knowledge was lessened, so too would analytic philosophy. And by the end maybe, that if armchair knowledge is strengthened by science say, that weakens AP too.

It feels like we can gain plenty of knowledge "from the armchair", and this has been a boon and supporting reason for analytic philosophy (e.g. success of mathematics, etc). It feels like analytic philosophy as a whole gets the hero's reward that there is this type of knowledge and that it most befits AP. AP almost needs this status quo to survive apart. But then I see a lot of discussion of prediction and counterfactual reasoning for evolutionary purposes by scientist nowadays. And I see that as non-analytic but "armchair". There seems to be a lot of non-actual (counterfactual and/or fictional) knowledge from the armchair that you wouldn't find in an AP course.

Am I wrong to have the impression that AP sustains by and is special claimant to armchair knowledge? Could this status quo be undermined by science, which seems to fall outside analytic philosophy, and provides us with a wealth of "armchair" knowledge?

(And if you think science does fall towards AP, my preconception is something like, cheetahs using predictive and counterfactual knowledge to catch gazelle would only be very thinly captured analytically).

Hopefully this is precise enough to get answers/feedback.


You must log in to answer this question.