Evidence Relationship: Supports
Vote on whether "Order effects on trolley cases persist among professional philosophers with AOS in ethics (Ojeda et al., 2022, N=387)" is good evidence that supports the claim "Order of presentation reverses majority verdicts on Footbridge in 31% of subjects (Lindqvist & Ojeda, 2020, N=4,812)"
Evidence Claim
Order effects on trolley cases persist among professional philosophers with AOS in ethics (Ojeda et al., 2022, N=387)
A sample recruited from ethics conference registration lists showed an order-induced swing of 9 percentage points on Footbridge endorsement, smaller than the lay swing of 12 points but statistically robust (p=0.004). Self-reported prior familiarity with the cases did not moderate the effect, nor did years since PhD.
Main Claim
Order of presentation reverses majority verdicts on Footbridge in 31% of subjects (Lindqvist & Ojeda, 2020, N=4,812)
In a preregistered multi-site study, participants who saw Switch before Footbridge endorsed pushing at 21%, while those who saw Footbridge first endorsed it at 12%; the reverse asymmetry appeared for Switch endorsement. Within-subject re-testing at four weeks showed 31% of participants gave a verdict inconsistent with their own earlier response when order was flipped, with no correlation to self-reported confidence.
Log in to join the discussion.
Expertise defense proponents will say the relevant expertise is having worked through the case reflectively in writing, not merely having an AOS. That's not obviously a dodge.
It isn't a dodge, but it's close to unfalsifiable unless someone specifies the reflective procedure in advance. We invited exactly that in the discussion section.