Science

13007 readers

6 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Space

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

A leading theory of consciousness has been branded ‘pseudoscience’ (theconversation.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Civil war has broken out in the field of consciousness research. More than 100 consciousness researchers have signed a letter accusing one of the most popular scientific theories of consciousness – the integrated information theory – of being pseudoscience.

Immediately, several other figures in the field responded by critiquing the letter as poorly reasoned and disproportionate.

Both sides are motivated by a concern for the long-term health and respectability of consciousness science. One side (including the letter signatories) is worrying that the association of consciousness science with what they perceive to be a pseudoscientific theory will undermine the credibility of the field.

The other side is pressing that what they perceive as unsupported charges of pseudoscience will ultimately result in the whole science of consciousness being perceived as pseudoscience.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's not entirely true. It's meant to categorize fields of study which try to pass themselves off as scientific, that is to say that they follow the scientific method. To call something pseudoscientific is to say that they aren't following the scientific method. Fields of study which rely a lot on biases, exaggerated claims, are lacking rigorous attempts of refutation, etc. fall into this category.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was being specific to this claim of pseudoscience; which seems to be based on the fact that we don't have any other verifiable facts and instead it attacks the theory as pseudoscience despite there being no other prevailing proof of harms like biases, claims and lacking refutation.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah I mean I think they're just taking issue with the breadth or scope of what they're measuring and worried that by calling things conscious which people don't typically think of as conscious, they'd make people doubt the scientific rigor of the field. I don't think it justifies calling it pseudoscience so much as the early stages of hypothesis or looking to expand the colloquial or vernacular definitions of consciousness. To anyone who's worried about that, I'd suggest that they talk with modern physicists because everything we know has gotten extremely weird in the last few decades as we've struggling with a lot of weird conundrums about what reality even is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Very well put indeed, IMO.