Confounding factors in contrastive analysis

Synthese 141 (2):217-31 (2004)
  Several authors within psychology, neuroscience and philosophy take for granted that standard empirical research techniques are applicable when studying consciousness. In this article, it is discussed whether one of the key methods in cognitive neuroscience – the contrastive analysis – suffers from any serious confounding when applied to the field of consciousness studies; that is to say, if there are any systematic difficulties when studying consciousness with this method that make the results untrustworthy. Through an analysis of theoretical arguments in favour of using contrastive analysis, combined with analyses of empirical findings, I conclude by arguing for three factors that currently are confounding of research using contrastive analysis. These are (1) unconscious processes, (2) introspective reports, and (3) attention
Keywords Analysis  Consciousness  Contrastive  Neuroscience  Science
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1023/B:SYNT.0000043019.64052.e0
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 26,205
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Consciousness: Individuated Information in Action.J. Jonkisz - 2015 - Frontiers in Psychology 6 (1035).

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

67 ( #76,284 of 2,154,148 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

16 ( #28,316 of 2,154,148 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums