Why do we care what laypeople think over professional philosophers? Are philosophers biased away from the truth? Aren’t we learning about what people say rather than what really is? 1. We’re supplementing traditional philosophy - we want to show philosophical conclusions are not at odds with reality (we at least need an account in light of the evidence, e.g., above) 2. Laypeople lack prior theoretical commitments to bias them. 3. A general psychological investigation into how we draw conclusions from evidence (what biases are at play when we go data -> theory) is precisely what philosophy has always done. - We can learn how to do philosophy better by understanding, e.g., that we are likely to draw certain conclusions given our human desire to punish. - Some of our theories are an expression of current cultural identity rather than universal truth