Methodological reductionism or methodological dualism? In search of a middle ground

Morten Overgaard*

*Corresponding author af dette arbejde

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

1 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

The contrasts between so-called objective and subjective measures of consciousness have been a dominating topic of discussion for decades. The debate has classically been dominated by two positions – that subjective measures may be completely or partially reduced to objective measures, and, alternatively that they must exist in parallel. I argue that many problems relate to subjective reports as they can be imprecise and vulnerable to a number of potential confounding factors. However, I also argue that despite the fact that subjective reports are fallible, all objective measures are derived from subjective measures, and, thus, will never under normal circumstances be more correct. I propose that the best and possibly only realistic way forward is a specific version of a “middle ground”: to attempt to improve subjective reports in a collaboration with objective research methods.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftPhenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences
Vol/bind24
Nummer2
Sider (fra-til)345-358
Antal sider14
ISSN1568-7759
DOI
StatusUdgivet - apr. 2025

Fingeraftryk

Dyk ned i forskningsemnerne om 'Methodological reductionism or methodological dualism? In search of a middle ground'. Sammen danner de et unikt fingeraftryk.

Citationsformater