Thought experiment: does it have the epistemological status?

The article reviews the discussion that has developed over the past two decades between Western methodologists concerning the status of thought experiments. We analyze the most authoritative aspects of the discussion, represented by John Norton, James Brown and Tamar Gendler. The principal provisions are revealed, which defence will lead to confirmation of the epistemic force of thought experiment. In the light of these provisions, the authors' positions, evolution of their views over time, and argumentation are analyzed. Thus, the article shows the pros and cons of intuitivistic and platonic approaches, as well as the results of thought experiments reduction to logical arguments. Lastly, we have made conclusions whether any of the approaches satisfies the provisions.