Consciousness is a phenomenon that is widely considered amenable to scientific investigation.

Evidence

A Traditional Scientific Perspective on the Integrated Information Theory (PMC/NIH)

corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
XREF: connects to: Human knowledge fails to answer life’s fundamental questions. — Leo Tolstoy, A Confession, 64; Science has failed to adequately answer how human consciousness developed or what it actually is. — No, Science Can’t Answer the Biggest Questions of Life and Existence; Science is done by brains and people, so claiming science can’t explain consciousness is nonsensical. — Science can’t explain consciousness because … (+3 more)

Consciousness presents a ‘hard problem’ to scholars — how the physical body gives rise to subjective experience. (similarity 0.86)
Understanding consciousness requires not treating organisms like machines and minds like code. (similarity 0.85)
Conscious experience in humans depends on brain activity, so neuroscience will contribute to explaining consciousness. (similarity 0.84)
Science is done by brains and people, so claiming science can’t explain consciousness is nonsensical. (similarity 0.84)
The majority of neuroscientists ignore the question of how consciousness is generated. (similarity 0.83)
Science has failed to adequately answer how human consciousness developed or what it actually is. (similarity 0.83)
As McGinn argued, introspection cannot tell us how physical processes give rise to consciousness. (similarity 0.82)
The hard problem of consciousness is explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious. (similarity 0.80)
All knowledge reduces to intuition, which is consciousness’s presence to things (similarity 0.78)
Reductionists accept only ‘temporary mysterianism’—current ignorance about consciousness that future science may resolve—versus ‘permanent mysterianism,’ which claims the mystery is unsolvable. (similarity 0.78)