6 ms·

"Although only tested in one person" As a classically trained scientist, I fail to see how this can be newsworthy given how big of revelation this would be to

by TheBiv 12y ago

"Although only tested in one person" As a classically trained scientist, I fail to see how this can be newsworthy given how big of revelation this would be to broader scientific discovery and how statistically invalid this claim is at this point. However, as legend would have it, psychologist B.F. Skinner was famous for performing his experiments on a single cat/dog. When prodded by other psychologists on how he could claim his results were valid since he only tested it on one subject, he would say "Well, bring me your cat"

robbiep 12y ago
Most neurology reports are case reports of 1 patient, the most notable of all of course being Phineas Gauge.
- TheBiv 12y ago
  Howdy! I definitely understand how a lot of neurological progress has happened with single person experiments. I guess my main quip is how matter-of-fact this article expresses the finding! Then again, I may just be arguing over semantics and not taking the gist of the finding. I appreciate your simple note to remind me of the fact that the finding is the cool thing, not the words used when being reported!
  - robbiep 12y ago
    Very courteous reply. With regard to the tone of the article, I guess you could say new scientist often take that tone. Have a nice day!
- oelmekki 12y ago
  Isn't it a problem ? I'm only looking this field from far, as public interest does, but I kind of remember reading brain can actually reorganize so that impaired zone's functionality are transferred to other ones, to compensate. If I'm not mistaken here, doesn't this make using a single subject even more of a problem in neuroscience than in other science experiments ?
  - ElliotH 12y ago
    Even in other fields if you were just 'exploring', ie you didn't know what controlled experiment to perform, you would perform sample size 1 experiments in the hope of generating a testable hypothesis. That doesn't mean you can draw conclusions from this study, but it does introduce an intriguing option for a future study with controls and a larger sample size.
    - oelmekki 12y ago
      Ok, I see. It's actually stating strong hypothesis rather than being a weak study. Thanks.
brudgers 12y ago
Well as soon as you admit more than one consciousness into the world your already on shakey ground. And allowing one consciousness is perhaps being charitable. Not that I am arguing against other minds, mind you. It's rather that a starting point of classical science doesn't really get one anywhere in regards to consciousness. We are always performing an induction from the one we have privileged access to for any claim about others
- goldenkey 12y ago
  What brudgers is saying is that there is no proof that can be made that anyone is conscious but yourself. Sure, you can experience love and feelings that lead you to believe that this partner of yours is conscious, and other people are.. But ultimately, there is a HUGE difference and leap of assumption between consciousness and reactiveness. We know animals are reactive. We only know that our self-being is conscious. Obviously these are Matrix-type thoughts. I am just trying to explain brudgers point.
  - rosser 12y ago
    It's called Epistemic Asymmetry, and it's a fundamental part of the so-called "Hard Problem of Consciousness".
    - goldenkey 12y ago
      Thank you, I did not know the exact terminology. The closest I've read was the 'brain in a vat' and evil daemon from Descartes' Meditations.
    - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
      It's bloody-stupid is what it is. If you understood how your own consciousness works on a scientific level, you would know exactly what evidence to check for in other people to know whether they're conscious or not. You could perform a simple medical test to find out if someone's a p-zombie (hint: they definitely aren't).
Tycho 12y ago
It's hardly statistically invalid. This wasn't a drugs trial. They noted an effect on a subject from a direct stimulus and then repeated the experiment numerous times with variations that corroborated their finding. Obviously the next step is to find another test subject but I think it's pretty obvious why this is newsworthy.

by TheBiv 12y ago

robbiep 12y ago

Most neurology reports are case reports of 1 patient, the most notable of all of course being Phineas Gauge.

TheBiv 12y ago
Howdy! I definitely understand how a lot of neurological progress has happened with single person experiments. I guess my main quip is how matter-of-fact this article expresses the finding! Then again, I may just be arguing over semantics and not taking the gist of the finding. I appreciate your simple note to remind me of the fact that the finding is the cool thing, not the words used when being reported!
- robbiep 12y ago
  Very courteous reply. With regard to the tone of the article, I guess you could say new scientist often take that tone. Have a nice day!
oelmekki 12y ago
Isn't it a problem ? I'm only looking this field from far, as public interest does, but I kind of remember reading brain can actually reorganize so that impaired zone's functionality are transferred to other ones, to compensate. If I'm not mistaken here, doesn't this make using a single subject even more of a problem in neuroscience than in other science experiments ?
- ElliotH 12y ago
  Even in other fields if you were just 'exploring', ie you didn't know what controlled experiment to perform, you would perform sample size 1 experiments in the hope of generating a testable hypothesis. That doesn't mean you can draw conclusions from this study, but it does introduce an intriguing option for a future study with controls and a larger sample size.
  - oelmekki 12y ago
    Ok, I see. It's actually stating strong hypothesis rather than being a weak study. Thanks.

brudgers 12y ago

Well as soon as you admit more than one consciousness into the world your already on shakey ground. And allowing one consciousness is perhaps being charitable. Not that I am arguing against other minds, mind you. It's rather that a starting point of classical science doesn't really get one anywhere in regards to consciousness. We are always performing an induction from the one we have privileged access to for any claim about others

goldenkey 12y ago
What brudgers is saying is that there is no proof that can be made that anyone is conscious but yourself. Sure, you can experience love and feelings that lead you to believe that this partner of yours is conscious, and other people are.. But ultimately, there is a HUGE difference and leap of assumption between consciousness and reactiveness. We know animals are reactive. We only know that our self-being is conscious. Obviously these are Matrix-type thoughts. I am just trying to explain brudgers point.
- rosser 12y ago
  It's called Epistemic Asymmetry, and it's a fundamental part of the so-called "Hard Problem of Consciousness".
  - goldenkey 12y ago
    Thank you, I did not know the exact terminology. The closest I've read was the 'brain in a vat' and evil daemon from Descartes' Meditations.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    It's bloody-stupid is what it is. If you understood how your own consciousness works on a scientific level, you would know exactly what evidence to check for in other people to know whether they're conscious or not. You could perform a simple medical test to find out if someone's a p-zombie (hint: they definitely aren't).

Tycho 12y ago

It's hardly statistically invalid. This wasn't a drugs trial. They noted an effect on a subject from a direct stimulus and then repeated the experiment numerous times with variations that corroborated their finding. Obviously the next step is to find another test subject but I think it's pretty obvious why this is newsworthy.