On keeping our adversaries close, preventing collateral damage, and changing our minds. Comment on Clark et al.

Melloni, Lucía

doi:10.1037/mac0000009

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

2022

DOI: 10.1037/mac0000009

|View full text |Cite

On keeping our adversaries close, preventing collateral damage, and changing our minds. Comment on Clark et al.

Lucía Melloni¹

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2022

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article3

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent3

Authors

Journals

Cited by 3 publications

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

(Dis)confirming theories of consciousness and their predictions: towards a Lakatosian consciousness science

Negro

2024

Neuroscience of Consciousness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neuroscience of consciousness is undergoing a significant empirical acceleration thanks to several adversarial collaborations that intend to test different predictions of rival theories of consciousness. In this context, it is important to pair consciousness science with confirmation theory, the philosophical discipline that explores the interaction between evidence and hypotheses, in order to understand how exactly, and to what extent, specific experiments are challenging or validating theories of consciousness. In this paper, I examine this intricate relationship by adopting a Lakatosian lens. I propose that Lakatos’ philosophy of science can aid consciousness scientists to better interpret adversarial collaborations in consciousness science and, more generally, to develop a confirmation-theoretic model of theory-appraisal in this field. I do so by suggesting that such a model be built upon three Lakatos-inspired criteria for assessing the relationship between empirical evidence and theoretical predictions: (i) the model should represent the ‘distinction between prediction and accommodation’; (ii) the model should represent the ‘structural relevance’ of predictions; (iii) the model should represent the ‘boldness’ of the predictions. I argue that a Lakatosian model of theory-appraisal has both normative and descriptive virtues, and can move the debate forward by acknowledging that theory-appraisal needs to consider the diachronic development of theories, their logical structure, and their relationship with background beliefs and knowledge.

show abstract

(Dis)confirming theories of consciousness and their predictions: towards a Lakatosian consciousness science

Negro

2024

Neuroscience of Consciousness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Natural kind reasoning in consciousness science: An alternative to theory testing

Mckilliam

2024

Nous

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is often suggested that to make progress in consciousness science we need a theory of consciousness—one that tells us what consciousness is and what kinds of systems can have it. But this may be putting the cart before the horse. There are currently a wide range of very different theories all claiming to be theories of consciousness. How are we to decide between them if we do not already know which systems are conscious and what they are conscious of? In this paper I aim to do two things. First, I explain why a theory‐driven approach to consciousness science, even one sensitive to Lakatosian norms and updating in a Bayesian manner, may lead to divergence rather than convergence. Second, I draw on the history of thermometry and natural kind reasoning to sketch a theory‐neutral route towards progress in consciousness science.

show abstract

Conference Report: The Science of Consciousness 2022

Grasso

2022

Journal of Consciousness Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

On keeping our adversaries close, preventing collateral damage, and changing our minds. Comment on Clark et al.

Cited by 3 publications

References 28 publications

(Dis)confirming theories of consciousness and their predictions: towards a Lakatosian consciousness science

(Dis)confirming theories of consciousness and their predictions: towards a Lakatosian consciousness science

Natural kind reasoning in consciousness science: An alternative to theory testing

Conference Report: The Science of Consciousness 2022

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About