Dynamics of scientific change and cognitive science. An epistemological update / Dinámica de cambio y ciencias cognitivas. Una puesta al día epistemológica
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2015
Dynamics of scientific change and cognitive science. An epistemological update / Dinámica de cambio y ciencias cognitivas. Una puesta al día epistemológica
I explore two proposals on the dynamics of scientific change in the general philosophy of science and I evaluate the extent to which they can be applied in the cognitive sciences. I do this by paying special attention to the youth and diversity which characterize this field of scientific research. Firstly, I distinguish two kinds of uses of Kuhn’s work: direct but loose applications of Kuhnean concepts to the history of cognitive science, on the one hand, and indirect applications of certain aspects of Kuhnean ideas, on the other hand. Secondly, I criticize their pertinence on the basis of the secondary role which theories play in the field. Finally, I defend the fertility of the concept of ‘research tradition’ proposed by Laudan, by focusing on the previously highlighted set of idiosyncratic characteristics of the cognitive sciences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonM. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–130. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00054-7
2.
BaarsB. (1986). The cognitive revolution in psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
3.
BechtelW. (1988). Philosophy of science. An overview for cognitive science. Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum.
4.
BechtelW.AbrahamsenA.GrahamG. (1999). The life of cognitive science. In BechtelW.GrahamG. (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 1–104). Oxford: Blackwell.
5.
BowerG. H.ClapperJ. P. (1989). Experimental methods in cognitive science. In PosnerM. (Ed.), Foundations of Cognitive Science (pp. 246–300). Cambridge: MIT Press.
6.
ClarkA. (1997). Being there. Cambridge: MIT Press.
7.
ClarkA. (2001). Mindware. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
DaleR. (2008). The possibility of a pluralist cognitive science. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 20, 155–179. doi:10.1080/09528130802319078
DanksD.EberhardtF. (2009). Conceptual problems in statistics, testing and experimentation. In SymonsJ.CalvoF. (Eds.), Routledge companion to the philosophy of psychology (pp. 214–230). London: Routledge.
11.
EstanyA. (1999). Vida, Muerte y Resurrección de la Conciencia. Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.
12.
FodorJ. (1975). The language of thought. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
13.
FranklinS. (1995). Artificial minds. Cambridge: MIT Press.
14.
GardnerH. (1987). La Nueva Ciencia de la Mente. (L. Wolfson, Trans.). Barcelona: Paidós.
15.
GholsonB.BarkerP. (1985). Kuhn, Lakatos and Laudan: Applications in the history of physics and psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 755–769. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.7.755
16.
GomilaA.CalvoF. (2008). Directions for an embodied cognitive science. In CalvoF.GomilaA. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science (pp. 1–25). Oxford: Elsevier.
17.
HarréR. (2002). Cognitive science. London: Sage.
18.
HaugelandJ. (1997). What is mind design? In HaugelandJ. (Ed.), Mind design II (pp. 1–28). Cambridge: MIT Press.
19.
KuhnT. (1971). La Estructura de las Revoluciones Científicas. Ciudad de México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
20.
KuhnT. (1974). Segundas reflexiones acerca de los paradigmas. In SuppeF. (Ed.), La Estructura de las Teorías Científicas (pp. 509–533). Madrid: Editora Nacional.
21.
LaudanL. (1984). Science and values. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
22.
LaudanL. (1986). El Progreso y sus Problemas. Madrid: Ediciones Encuentro.
23.
LeaheyT. (1992). The mythical revolutions of American psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 308–318. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.2.308
24.
LeaheyT. (1998). Historia de la Psicología. Principales Corrientes en el Pensamiento Psicológico. Madrid: Prentice Hall Iberia.
25.
Looren de JongH. (2002). Levels of explanation in biological psychology. Philosophical Psychology, 15, 441–462. doi:10.1080/0951508021000042003
26.
MarderE.KopellN.SigvardtK. (1997). How computation aids in understanding biological networks. In SteinP.GrillnerS.SelverstonA.StuartD. (Eds.), Neurons, networks, and motor behavior (pp. 139–149). Cambridge: MIT Press.
27.
Martel JohnsonD. (1997). What is the purported discipline of cognitive science and why does it need to be reassessed at the present moment. In Martel JohnsonD.ErnelingC. (Eds.), The future of the cognitive revolution (pp. 3–12). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
McClellandJ. (1988). Connectionist models and psychological evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 107–123. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90069-1
29.
MorrisonM. (2007). Where have all the theories gone?Philosophy of Science, 74, 195–228. doi:10.1086/520778
30.
PalermoD. (1971). Is a scientific revolution taking place in psychology?Science Studies, 1, 135–155. doi:10.1177/030631277100100202
31.
PollatsekA.RaynerK. (1998). Behavioral experimentation. In BechtelW.GrahamG. (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 352–370). London: Blackwell.
32.
SegalE.LachmanR. (1972). Complex behavior or higher mental process. American Psychologist, 27, 46–55. doi:10.1037/h0032254
33.
SperryR. (1993). The impact and promise of the cognitive revolution. American Psychologist, 48, 878–885. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.8.878
34.
StevensC. (2000). Models are common; good theories are scarce. Nature Neuroscience, 3(Supp), 1177. doi:10.1038/81451
35.
SuppeF. (1974). La Estructura de las Teorías Científicas. Madrid: Editora Nacional.
36.
ThagardP. (1996). Mind: Introduction to cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
37.
VarelaF. (1990). On the conceptual skeleton of cognitive science. In FinkW. (Ed.), Beobachter (pp. 13–25). Munich: Verlag.
38.
VenturelliA. N. (2011). Conexionismo y teoría cognitiva: Dimensiones de autonomía en el modelado. In GarcíaP.RodríguezV.VelascoM. (Eds.), Las Prácticas Científicas (pp. 153–176). Córdoba (AR): Editorial Brujas.
39.
von EckardtB. (1993). What is cognitive science?Cambridge: MIT Press.
40.
von EckardtB. (2006). Cognitive science. In SarkarS.PfeiferJ. (Eds.), The philosophy of science (pp. 123–131). New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
WeiY. (2007). Model-based reasoning in cognitive science. In MagnaniL.LiP. (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in science, technology, and medicine (pp. 273–292). Berlin: Springer.
42.
WilsonM. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 625–636. doi:10.3758/BF03196322
