Special Section: Mind the Methodology
Theory & Psychology June 1, 2008 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.1177/0959354308089790
Summary
Heterophenomenology (HP) and neurophenomenology (NP) are both methodologies for studying consciousness, but deciding which to prefer is challenging as they currently allow for similar experiments. HP dismisses conclusions drawn from NP, suggesting a need to choose between them. However, there are no strong reasons to reject either methodology as unreliable or invalid at this time, indicating that both should continue to be considered in research.
Study at a glance
| Key finding | Both heterophenomenology and neurophenomenology should be kept in consideration for studying consciousness as neither has been shown to be unreliable or invalid. |
|---|
Abstract
In this paper I compare heterophenomenology and neurophenomenology as methodologies for a science of consciousness. I give introductions of heterophenomenology (HP) and neurophenomenology (NP), respectively. Than I briefly relate HP and NP to mainstream cognitive science methodology and to each other. I claim that although HP and NP are indeed different methodologies for studying consciousness, in practice it will be very hard to decide on which methodology we should prefer since, given the research that is currently available, both methodologies seem to allow for the same range of experiments. Given the fact that HP excludes the validity of conclusions drawn by means of NP, it seems that we do have to choose between them, nonetheless. My goal is, however, to see whether there currently are reasons for rejecting HP or NP as unreliable or invalid across the board. I conclude that for the time being we had better keep both HP and NP in the running.