Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • I agree with this answer, but I bet this will still be confusing to the OP. The pupil size does have some relevance (indicating relative lack of attention while listening to the lullabies). It's just that this cannot as directly serve as evidence against the claim (reduced heart rate because of relaxation). Commented Sep 6, 2025 at 13:58
  • A doesn't end up weakening the critic's claims. Makes attention a non-factor, meaning we can't solely attribute the difference in heart rate to attention. The critic could present a counterexample where both lullaby and non-lullaby captured attention, and there was some additional factor causing the difference. Commented Sep 6, 2025 at 15:42
  • 1
    The entire text is comparative between lullaby and non-lullaby, so when the critic claims the lullaby simply attracted the attention, it necessitates that the lullaby attracted more attention than the non-lullaby. Greater decrease in heart rate during lullabies relative to non-lullabies Commented Sep 6, 2025 at 15:43
  • 3
    "the lullaby relaxed the infants" is not the critic's claim. That was the hypothesis of the researchers, the critic said that the lullaby attracts the infants' attention rather than relaxing them. Commented Sep 7, 2025 at 21:06
  • 3
    "pupils typically become larger when a stimulus captures a person's attention" -- why do you say pupil size is irrelevant to the claim? Commented Sep 7, 2025 at 21:10