The analytic‐continental divide in philosophical practice: An empirical study

Abstract

Philosophy is often divided into two traditions or camps: Analytic Philosophy and Continental Philosophy. Characterizing the so-called "Analytic-Continental divide," however, and explaining the differences between these two philosophical traditions is no easy task. Some philosophers have argued that the differences have to do with the place of argument in the two traditions. This raises the following questions: Is Analytic Philosophy rife with arguments while Continental Philosophy is devoid of arguments? Or can different types of arguments be found in Analytic Philosophy and in Continental Philosophy? If so, which ones? Using data mining and text analysis methods, we study a large corpus of philosophical texts mined from the JSTOR database (n = 53,260) in order to tackle these questions empirically. Using indicator words to classify arguments by type (deductive, inductive, and abductive arguments), we search through our corpus to find patterns of usage. Overall, the results of our empirical study suggest that there are no significant differences between the types of arguments advanced in Analytic Philosophy journal articles and the types of arguments advanced in Continental Philosophy journal articles. In fact, articles published in both AP journals and CP journals contain the three types of arguments we have looked at, namely, deductive, inductive, and abductive arguments, with no significant differences in frequency. Our findings, therefore, provide no empirical support to the hypothesis that the so-called split or divide between Analytic Philosophy and Continental Philosophy has something to do with the place of argument in these two philosophical traditions or camps.

Philosophy’s gender gap and argumentative arena: an empirical study

“…These pairs were changed and pattern search was run across the entire corpus to generate a list of the articles which contained matches. While it may not seem intuitive to search for root-anchor argument indicator pairs across the whole corpus, this technique was employed in an earlier study (Mizrahi and Dickinson 2021). It was a simpler task to filter through all articles containing matches, rather than to drill down to the authors used in this study and then compile the matched articles.…”

“… Ashton and Mizrahi (2018, p. 58) use a similar methodology to test the hypothesis that "philosophy is a priori and in the business of discovering necessary truths from the armchair." See alsoMizrahi and Dickinson (2021).…”

Disciplinary Maturity in Moving From Nurse Scientist to Nursing Scientist

“…Analytic philosophy differs from philosophical approaches that aim to provide grand frameworks about the world and the meaning of life. Also, the analytic tradition is contrasted with the continental tradition, although results from a recent empirical study of scholarly publications showed no significant difference in style of argumentation (deductive, inductive, or abductive) between the philosophical approaches (Mizrahi & Dickinson, 2021). The analytic approach is used to fix, at least temporarily, the meanings of concepts to draw distinctions and consider consequences of assumptions.…”

Significance of Argumentation Tasks in Vietnamese Geography Textbooks Following the Competency-based Curriculum Reform

“…Analyses of such argumentation skills are being conducted in various subjects around the world (a.o. Sriraman & Umland, 2014;Songsil, Pongsophon, Boonsatien & Clarke, 2019;Mizrahi & Dickinson, 2020).…”