I-Perception 7 (1) (2016)

Sam Clarke
York University
A recent empirical study claims to show that the answer to Molyneux’s question is negative, but, as John Schwenkler points out, its findings are inconclusive: Subjects tested in this study probably lacked the visual acuity required for a fair assessment of the question. Schwenkler is undeterred. He argues that the study could be improved by lowering the visual demands placed on subjects, a suggestion later endorsed and developed by Kevin Connolly. I suggest that Connolly and Schwenkler both underestimate the difficulties involved in rectifying the study they seek to fix. The problem is that the experimental paradigm under consideration fails to account for the role that rational inference plays in newly sighted subjects’ ability or inability to recognize spatial properties across modalities. Since answering Molyneux’s question requires establishing whether spatial properties can be recognized, across modalities, by newly sighted subjects without recourse to rational inference, this is a problem. Indeed, it is a problem that may be worsened by Schwenkler and Connolly’s suggestions regarding the lowering of visual demands on subjects in cross-modal matching tasks.
Keywords Molyneux’s question  inference  spatial representation  cross-modal perception  vision  touch
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Modularity of Mind.Jerry A. Fodor - 1983 - Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
The Modularity of Mind.Robert Cummins & Jerry Fodor - 1985 - Philosophical Review 94 (1):101.
The Modularity of Mind. [REVIEW]Robert Cummins - 1985 - Philosophical Review 94 (1):101-108.
New Essays on Human Understanding.R. M. Mattern - 1984 - Philosophical Review 93 (2):315.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Learning to See.Boyd Millar - 2020 - Mind and Language 35 (5):601-620.
Two Visual Systems in Molyneux Subjects.Gabriele Ferretti - 2018 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 17 (4):643-679.
Representing Shape in Sight and Touch.E. J. Green - forthcoming - Mind and Language.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Do Things Look the Way They Feel?John Schwenkler - 2013 - Analysis 73 (1):86-96.
Thomas Reid on Molyneux's Question.Robert Hopkins - 2005 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (3):340-364.
Molyneux's Questions.Peter Baumann - 2004 - In Ralph Schumacher (ed.), Perception and Reality. mentis. pp. 168-187.
Molyneux Meets Euthyphro.Janet Levin - 2008 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 8 (3):289-297.
Molyneux’s Question.Robert Hopkins - 2005 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35 (3):441-464.
Leibniz on Molyneux's Question.Brian Glenney - 2012 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 29 (3):247-264.
Locke's Answer to Molyneux's Thought Experiment.Mike Bruno & Eric Mandelbaum - 2010 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 27 (2):165-80.
The Qualitative Character of Spatial Perception.Douglas B. Meehan - 2007 - Dissertation, Graduate Center, City University of New York


Added to PP index

Total views
282 ( #28,565 of 2,403,174 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
25 ( #31,926 of 2,403,174 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes