Obstacles to Testing Molyneux’s Question Empirically

Abstract

There have recently been various empirical attempts to answer Molyneux’s question, for example, the experiments undertaken by the Held group. These studies, though intricate, have encountered some objections, for instance, from Schwenkler, who proposes two ways of improving the experiments. One is “to re-run [the] experiment with the stimulus objects made to move, and/or the subjects moved or permitted to move with respect to them” (p. 94), which would promote three dimensional or otherwise viewpoint-invariant representations. The other is “to use geometrically simpler shapes, such as the cube and sphere in Molyneux’s original proposal, or planar figures instead of three-dimensional solids” (p. 188). Connolly argues against the first modification but agrees with the second. In this article, I argue that the second modification is also problematic (though still surmountable), and that both Schwenkler and Connolly are too optimistic about the prospect of addressing Molyneux’s question empirically.

Molyneux’s Question Within and Across the Senses

“…For further discussion of the difficulty in identifying raised-line drawings by touch, including reference to relevant experimental literature, seeCheng 2015. …”

Perspectival shapes are viewpoint-dependent relational properties.

“…A prominent example is Molyneux's question, which hypothesizes a person born completely blind can be made to see, and asks whether such subject can successfully tell whether an object is (say) a sphere rather than a cube solely by sight immediately. Held et al (2011) is an example of the most recent effort in answering this question empirically, but although they have made much progress, skepticism ensues and remains (e.g., Cheng, 2015;Connolly, 2013;Schwenkler, 2012Schwenkler, , 2013. Although the matter has not been settled, scientists' efforts are not in vain, as the process of designing and conducting experiments and disagreeing about them can teach us much about the topic.…”

Is Molyneux’s question really about multisensory integration?

“…Cheng (2015) nonetheless offered a more pessimistic perspective on experimental tests of MQ by arguing that using simplified plus 2D shapes might raise alternative issues (although not necessarily insurmountable ones). Cheng (2015) argued that many newly sighted children show considerable difficulty identifying line drawings of even simple 2D shapes. 1 Regardless, as a caveat to these points, I would argue that using other shapes or configurations such as 2D shapes can invite other problems.…”