ABSTRACT
Thought experiments have played an important role in scientific progress throughout the history of science, and are employed to serve various purposes. Some thought experiments function primarily as illustrative examples designed to improve our understanding of a theory. Scientifically and epistemically more important, however, are thought experiments that attempt to test theories, hypotheses, claims, definitions or conceptual analyses. Many thought experiments aim to disprove or undermine existing theories by revealing contradictions, paradoxical implications, counterintuitive or unintended results of these theories. Some thought experiments have not only dismissed theories, but also paved the way for better ones. So it seems that by mere reflection on imaginary scenarios we can learn something interesting and new. Of course, thought experiments can fail. They can miss the point they intend to make and otherwise go astray. Some thought experiments are less reliable or less convincing than others. So thought experiments seem to be the kind of entities that warrant critical examination. We can rationally assess thought experiments with respect to their correctness, plausibility and reliability, and we can specify general criteria for the legitimate use of thought experiments (see, for example, Brendel 2004).
