TY  - JOUR
N2  - There have recently been various empirical attempts to answer Molyneux?s question, for example,
the experiments undertaken by the Held group. These studies, though intricate, have encountered
some objections, for instance, from Schwenkler, who proposes two ways of improving the
experiments. One is ??to re-run [the] experiment with the stimulus objects made to move, and/
or the subjects moved or permitted to move with respect to them?? (p. 94), which would promote
three dimensional or otherwise viewpoint-invariant representations. The other is ??to use
geometrically simpler shapes, such as the cube and sphere in Molyneux?s original proposal, or
planar figures instead of three-dimensional solids?? (p. 188). Connolly argues against the first
modification but agrees with the second. In this article, I argue that the second modification is
also problematic (though still surmountable), and that both Schwenkler and Connolly are too
optimistic about the prospect of addressing Molyneux?s question empirically.
ID  - discovery1474020
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2041669515599330
SN  - 2041-6695
JF  - i-Perception
A1  - Cheng, T
KW  - Molyneux question
KW  -  blind subjects
KW  -  movement
KW  -  raised-line drawings
KW  -  amodal representation
KW  -  touch
TI  - Obstacles to Testing Molyneux's Question Empirically
Y1  - 2015///
AV  - public
VL  - 6
IS  - 4
N1  - Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (http://www.uk.
sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm).
ER  -