> Any branch of science, engineering, or philosophy that addresses aspects of
>cognition is part of cognitive science. (02)
I think most practitioners of all those trades would disagree with that.
'Cognitive science' is a particular discipline. It involves the selection and
integration of concepts from neuroscience (and other biophysical and
biochemical sciences), psychology, linguistics, and possibly philosophy, in
attempting to understand the workings of brains, particularly human ones.
Cognitive science, like all science, is analytical in nature. Psychology,,
psychiatry, neuromedicine, biophysical engineering and knowledge engineering
are "engineering" disciplines that are in part applications of cognitive
sciences. Engineering disciplines are all partly analytical (as applications
of sciences) and, most importantly, partly synthetic. The seek to know the
world in order to *change* it. (03)
[That said, the creation of a major source of funding for research in
"cognitive science" may well cause many researchers in all these related fields
to repaint their roses and broaden the term to cover what *they* do.
Government funding for research in a topic area can destroy the meaning of the
topic term in an afternoon. But we don't have to help them do it.] (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 8:10 AM
> To: rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
> Cc: KR-language; Richard S. Latimer
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Objectivist Context vs. Cognitive Science
> The whole idea of the "vs" is misguided. Any branch of science, engineering,
> or philosophy that addresses aspects of cognition is part of cognitive
> Unlike religion, no science of any kind has a dogma. The "laws" of any
> science are always *fallible*. They are the best tested approximations at any
> particular time. And emphasize the word *tested*.
> Unlike science, engineering adds the limitations of deadlines, budgets, and
> available resources. Engineers know that Newtonian mechanics is not as
> precise as quantum mechanics or relativity. But they also know the
> conditions when Newtonian mechanics is adequate for the job.
> > Would you tell me if your knowledge of cognitive science contradicts
> > the relations that I have described between
> > existent
> > space percept
> > time concept
> > view proposition
> > knowledge
> I'm sure that you can find some aspects of some theories by some people
> who work in some branch of cognitive science that are similar to some of
> your statements.
> But I have my own deadlines, budgets, and available resources.
> I'm skeptical about your notation and theory. So far, I haven't seen anything
> that makes me want to devote any time to it. The more you talk about it, the
> lower my opinion of it.
> As I said before, come back when you have demonstrated that you can
> translate every sentence in one page of whatever text you choose from
> English to your notation -- *and* somebody who doesn't know the original
> can translate it back to a good approximation.
> Good luck,
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (07)