Nature writes

It [a letter] argues that a prominent theory describing what makes someone or something conscious — called the integrated information theory (IIT) — should be labelled as pseudoscience.

in addition, Lau says, some of his co-authors think that it’s not possible to empirically test IIT’s core assumptions, which they argue contributes to the theory’s status as pseudoscience.

The article continues with rebuttal

[Liad Mudrik], “Not only did we test it, we managed to falsify one of its predictions,”

  • Is IIT a pseudo science?
  • 2
    If a theory is "bacon cures cancer and COVID", and the prediction that it cures COVID is falsified, then the theory isn't pseudoscience ?!?
    – DavePhD
    Commented Sep 26, 2023 at 13:44
  • As this is an open argument in an emerging field, this question might be better suited to a scientific Stack Exchange.
    – Schwern
    Commented Sep 27, 2023 at 1:59
  • 1
    @DavePhD Given the context, I assume they're treating 'pseudoscience' as something that is untestable, or 'belief' based. In this case, a good-faith experiment that determined that bacon does not in fact cure cancer and COVID would still be science, albeit a bit silly.
    – Onyz
    Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 12:17
  • 1
    YMMV en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory#Reception As discussed there, most other theories of consciousness have roughly the same status. See also science.org/content/article/… Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 19:52
  • Careful of the false binary. If something is [not a pseudoscience] that doesn't mean it is a science.The Wikipedia article on IIT quotes John Searle as saying "it does not get up to the level of being false", a nice rephrase of "Not even wrong". Commented Oct 4, 2023 at 11:52


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .