Cargando…
How to test Molyneux's question empirically
In a recent i-Perception article, Schwenkler (2012) criticizes a 2011 experiment by R. Held and colleagues purporting to answer Molyneux's question. Schwenkler proposes two ways to re-run the original experiment, either by allowing subjects to move around the stimuli, or by simplifying the stim...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Pion
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129384/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25165508 http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/i0623jc |
_version_ | 1782330228283015168 |
---|---|
author | Connolly, Kevin |
author_facet | Connolly, Kevin |
author_sort | Connolly, Kevin |
collection | PubMed |
description | In a recent i-Perception article, Schwenkler (2012) criticizes a 2011 experiment by R. Held and colleagues purporting to answer Molyneux's question. Schwenkler proposes two ways to re-run the original experiment, either by allowing subjects to move around the stimuli, or by simplifying the stimuli to planar objects rather than three-dimensional ones. In Schwenkler (2013), he expands on and defends the former. I argue that this way of re-running the experiment is flawed, since it relies on a questionable assumption that newly sighted subjects will be able to appreciate depth cues. I then argue that the second way of re-running the experiment is successful both in avoiding the flaw of original Held experiment, and in avoiding the problem with the first way of re-running the experiment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4129384 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Pion |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-41293842014-08-27 How to test Molyneux's question empirically Connolly, Kevin Iperception Journal Club In a recent i-Perception article, Schwenkler (2012) criticizes a 2011 experiment by R. Held and colleagues purporting to answer Molyneux's question. Schwenkler proposes two ways to re-run the original experiment, either by allowing subjects to move around the stimuli, or by simplifying the stimuli to planar objects rather than three-dimensional ones. In Schwenkler (2013), he expands on and defends the former. I argue that this way of re-running the experiment is flawed, since it relies on a questionable assumption that newly sighted subjects will be able to appreciate depth cues. I then argue that the second way of re-running the experiment is successful both in avoiding the flaw of original Held experiment, and in avoiding the problem with the first way of re-running the experiment. Pion 2013-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4129384/ /pubmed/25165508 http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/i0623jc Text en Copyright 2013 K Connolly http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Licence, which permits noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author(s) and source are credited and no alterations are made. |
spellingShingle | Journal Club Connolly, Kevin How to test Molyneux's question empirically |
title | How to test Molyneux's question empirically |
title_full | How to test Molyneux's question empirically |
title_fullStr | How to test Molyneux's question empirically |
title_full_unstemmed | How to test Molyneux's question empirically |
title_short | How to test Molyneux's question empirically |
title_sort | how to test molyneux's question empirically |
topic | Journal Club |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129384/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25165508 http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/i0623jc |
work_keys_str_mv | AT connollykevin howtotestmolyneuxsquestionempirically |