Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2016, 1–9 doi: 10.1093/nc/niw011 Opinion Paper Consilience, clinical validation, and global disorders of consciousness Andrew Peterson* Rotman Institute of Philosophy and The Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada *Correspondence address. Department of Philosophy, Rotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, Stevenson Hall 2150, London, ON N6A 5B8, Canada. Tel: 519-661-2111 ext 80947; E-mail:
[email protected] Abstract Behavioral diagnosis of global disorders of consciousness is difficult and errors in diagnosis occur often. Recent advances in neuroimaging may resolve this problem. However, clinical translation of neuroimaging requires clinical validation. Applying the orthodox approach of clinical validation to neuroimaging raises two critical questions: (i) What exactly is being validated? and (ii) what counts as a gold standard? I argue that confusion over these questions leads to systematic errors in the empirical literature. I propose an alternative approach to clinical validation motivated by reasoning by consilience. Consilience is a mode of reasoning that assigns a degree of plausibility to a hypothesis based on its fit with multiple pieces of evidence from independent sources. I argue that this approach resolves the questions raised by the orthodox approach and may be a useful framework for optimizing future clinical validation studies in the science of consciousness. Key words: Global disorders of consciousness; consciousness; awareness; clinical validation; philosophy; neurology Introduction information ancillary to neurobehavioral exam that improves diagnostic accuracy. Yet, which neuroimaging methods have Improvements in intensive care have led to an increased sur- the greatest diagnostic accuracy is currently unknown. vival rate among patients who sustain severe brain injuries.