Abstract

In The Philosophy of Philosophy, Tim Williamson (2007) has offered a sophisticated account of thought experiments and of modal epistemology. More recently, he has also engaged in a variant of the so-called “expertise defence” of traditional philosophical methodology (Williamson 2009, 2011). In this paper I argue that if Williamson’s account of thought experiments and of modal epistemology is right, this seriously undermines his version of the expertise defence.