Methods for the scientific study of consciousness
Routledge eBooks July 20, 2017 DOI: 10.4324/9781315115092-7 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Qualitative Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Philosophy of mind |
| Key points | Argues that consciousness science needs methods to observe and measure subjective experience accurately and systematically, and that many psychological measures labeled self-reports or behavioral responses are in fact indirect measures of conscious experience. Contends that descriptive introspection carries serious pitfalls, including the problem that led behaviorists to reject it, and that change blindness has become an important method for studying consciousness and attention. |
Abstract
All empirical science is based on systematic observations and measurements. Consciousness itself, especially its qualitative features, is invisible to physical research instruments. The challenge for consciousness science is to find methods by which to observe and measure subjective conscious experiences accurately and systematically. Many data-collection methods in psychology are indirect measures of subjective conscious experiences. Psychologists are much more comfortable calling their methods "self-reports", "subjective verbal reports", or "behavioral responses" rather than measurements of consciousness, even when the data collected obviously reflect the contents and features of the subjective experiences of conscious human beings. The phenomenon studied in dream research takes place in the dreamer&s;s consciousness during sleep. There are many pitfalls and potential weaknesses in descriptive introspection as a method for data collection. The last and the most severe problem of descriptive introspection is the infamous one that led the behaviorists to deem the whole method unscientific. Change Blindness has become an important method to study consciousness and attention.