A Response to Núñez et al.'s (2019) “What Happened to Cognitive Science?”

Abstract

Núñez et al.'s (2019) negative assessment of the field of cognitive science derives from evaluation criteria that fail to reflect the true nature of the field. In reality, the field is thriving on both the research and educational fronts, and it shows great promise for the future.

For the Sciences They Are A‐Changin’: A Response to Commentaries on Núñez et al.’s (2019) “What Happened to Cognitive Science?”

“…Bender (2019) stresses the value of diversity, and Broude et al (2019) express that “multiplicity of frameworks [is] a sign of vigorous life” (p. 865). Overall, authors value “cross‐pollination of ideas” (McShane et al, 2019, p. 917), cross‐fertilization (Bender, 2019; Goldstone, 2019), and multidisciplinarity as a goal in cognitive science (Gray, 2019). Yes, we wholeheartedly endorse multidisciplinarity.…”

“…Contrary to what several commentators argued, our article never proclaimed that cognitive science should pursue a unified “single theory” (Gentner, 2019, p. 887). Editor Gray (2019) summarizing McShane et al’s arguments (2019) asked “what the heck is so unified about any other discipline” (p. 842)? Other commentators asked similar questions regarding psychology (Broude et al, 2019), physics (Schunn, 2019), and biology (Rosenbloom & Forbus, 2019).…”

“…Aware of the lack of a coherent conceptual core, some commentators argued that the field as it is today should be better thought of as a case of the so‐called integrative sciences, like complex systems (Goldstone, 2019; McShane et al, 2019, who use the term “integrating science”). To some extent, this may indeed accurately reflect the status of the field: a generic umbrella domain of cross‐disciplinary collaborations with a loosely outlined subject matter composed of areas already claimed by other disciplines .…”

“…In their elaboration, McShane et al (2019) make an important point. They observe that, for instance, “within [climate‐change research] … there are subareas, such as climate modeling, which have gained from strong collaboration between people of different backgrounds ….…”

“…Yet some commentators see no concerns at all. Gentner (2019) affirms that “cognitive science is doing fine” (p. 890), French (2019) that “cognitive science, as it has come to be practiced in 2019, is doing just fine” (p. 891), and McShane, Bringsjord, Hendler, Nirenburg, and Sun (2019)—offering no data or references whatsoever—proclaim that cognitive science “is thriving on both the research and educational fronts” (p. 914). Going beyond beliefs and opinions, these claims can be evaluated empirically.…”