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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Connolly, Kevin
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