Gary and Ed, (01)
Precision and vagueness should not be considered value judgments.
Sometimes a vague definition is more useful than a precise one. (02)
GBC
> I think that part of Ed's definition is a bit misleading. (03)
EJB
> [Cognitive Science] 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. (04)
GBC
> One may study cognition without tying phenomena so explicitly to the
> working of brains... (05)
Yes. The implications *and* the selection of concepts go both ways.
Some philosophers like the Churchlands deprecated "folk psychology"
and claimed that neuroscience would make traditional psychological
terms obsolete. (06)
But the newer generation of neuroscientists have a high regard for
the insights embodied in traditional terms. Instead of claiming
that psychology is reducible to brain states, they're looking at
actual data: How are the patterns in fMRI scans correlated with
what people are seeing, feeling, saying, and doing? (07)
General principle: In a field that is rapidly evolving, a precise
definition may just be a fossil of a dead intuition. (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (010)
|