“What’s done is done, the bullet’s left the gun”: Questions on the Application, Origin, and Metaphysics of the «Course-of-Experience Framework»
Adaptive Behavior May 20, 2022 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.1177/10597123221094356 via OpenAlex
Summary
This commentary on a target paper about the Course-of-Experience method praises its integration of Micro-phenomenology, Enactivism, and Peircean semiotics for studying lived experience in cognitive science. The author raises three concerns: how this method compares with similar approaches, whether Peircean semiotics is essential, and whether it unnecessarily adopts problematic assumptions from Micro-phenomenology about pre-reflective experience.
Study at a glance
| Design | theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Key finding | The Course-of-Experience method shows promise for integrating phenomenological data with experimental methods but faces unresolved questions about its uniqueness, necessity of Peircean semiotics, and assumptions about pre-reflective experience. |
Abstract
The Course-of-Experience presents an interesting method for working with others’ experience, drawing on Micro-phenomenology (MP), Enactivism, and Peircean semiotics. It addresses possible applications to cognitive science, answering to a call about how to reliably integrate phenomenological data and experimental methods. I applaud the ambitious framework presented in the target paper, and hope that Poizat and colleagues in response or in later work will address three potential shortcoming: (1) How does the framework fare in comparison to similar methods. (2) Why is Peircean semiotics necessary for the framework? 3) Does it need to copy what seems to be epistemological and metaphysical infelicities concerning pre-reflective experience directly from MP?