Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

[Neuroscience] Neurophenomenology

Tags:
  1. Sep 14, 2014 #1
    Hi all,

    Neurophenomenology a scientific research program initiated by Francisco Varela Is it considered a scientific approach ?

    On NCBI which is a National Center for Biotechnology Information advances science and health by providing access to biomedical and genomic information.



    If it is not, what argument disprove that it is a scientific approach ?

    Patrick
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 14, 2014 #2

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    To be discussed here the paper has to be published in a journal accepted by us. It cannot be mostly philosophy. Varela does both, so you need to be careful.
     
  4. Sep 20, 2014 #3
    From your link:

    "Neurophenomenological (NP) methods integrate objective and subjective data in ways that retain the statistical power of established disciplines (like cognitive science) while embracing the value of first-person reports of experience."

    Using first-person reports is common in psychology, do you consider that to be a "scientific approach"?
     
  5. Sep 20, 2014 #4

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This might be of interest to you. It's based on genetics rather than neuroscience, but includes a phenomenological component.

    Does a unique olfactory genome imply a unique olfactory world?

    http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v17/n1/full/nn.3608.html

    nn.3608-F1.jpg

    [10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12730696
    [11] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17873857
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  6. Sep 23, 2014 #5

    I think its debatable whether this approach is scientific. There is no general concensus on whether the hard problem of consciousness can be addressed scientifically, or on which approaches to solving the problem are scientific.

    Even worse, there is no general concensus on what "scientific" even means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem). Nevertheless, a good starting point to judge whether a theory is scientific is to ask whether it is falsifiable. Based on the wikipedia page, I can't figure out enough about this neurophenomenology approach to answer that.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: [Neuroscience] Neurophenomenology
  1. Dynamical Neuroscience (Replies: 119)

Loading...