Behavioral Philosophy?

Your rhetorical question has a non-rhetorical answer: yes, we need it.

That's because we need analytic philosophy in order to design new logical formalisms, and we need those logical formalisms in order to design policy languages for computer systems (e.g., for security purposes). Since those policy languages will be used by people who don't have PhD's in formal logic, it is important to understand the implicit logic people are reasoning with.

For example, you can view the Wason selection task either as evidence that people reason badly, or as evidence that the semantics of natural language conditionals are not actually classical propositional implication, but something else, like deontic rules. See Stenning and van Lambalgen's "A Little Logic Goes a Long Way: Basic Experiment on Semantic Theory in the Cognitive Science of Conditional Reasoning."

I can see the usefulness but not the novelty. Hasn't psychology pretty much exhausted this line of questions... in the 1970s?

Another insightful post. Do you actually have an argument?

What do you mean by "Behavioral economics is bad enough"? Do you mean it does not explain anything? Or that it tries to explain too much and is hence unwieldy?

More specific to this post, this is a clear problem with determining revealed preferences, and should not be discarded.

Dear Professor Machery:

Duh.

Sincerely,

FC

Hm. The philosophy of action is clearly important. A clear understanding of the relationship between intention and causality has a major impact in the law&punishment business.

But the argument you present is just plain stupid. The argument from majority is even worse than general arguments derived from language use.