Rumors of Our Death…

Abstract

Núñez and colleagues (2019) question whether cognitive science still exists “as a coherent academic field with a well‐defined and cohesive interdisciplinary research program.” This worry may be premature on two grounds. First, we are not convinced that the Lakatosian criterion of coalescence around a core framework is the best standard for judging whether a field is well‐defined and productive. Second, although we acknowledge that cognitive science is not as visible as we would like, we doubt that this low profile accurately reflects the state of actual research and teaching programs based on the cognitive science approach.

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

“…Several commentators concur with us that there are some serious problems with the status of cognitive science (e.g., Broude, Livingston, de Leeuw, Andrews, & Long, 2019; Cooper, 2019; Goel, 2019; Rosenbloom & Forbus, 2019). Yet some commentators see no concerns at all.…”

“…Several authors mentioned that we see “cognitive science as a failed entity” (Schunn, 2019, p. 846); that “cognitive science has failed” (Gentner, 2019, p. 884), that we say that “pluralism constitutes a failure” (Gentner, 2019, p. 885), and that we “take the multiplicity of frameworks …as a sign of the death of cognitive science” (Broude et al, 2019, p. 865). These are misinterpretations of our data and arguments.…”

“…These are misinterpretations of our data and arguments. We deliberately did not use the term “failure” broadly, or “death,” “obituary,” and “autopsy” (Broude et al, 2019, p. 864). Instead, as Bender (2019) acknowledges, we used the term “failure” specifically to refer to a failure to transition from a multidisciplinary to a cohesive, integrated interdisciplinary endeavor (Núñez et al, 2019, pp.…”

“…Gentner writes that “cognitive science is and should be pluralistic” (2019, p. 884), and that “pluralism should be celebrated and preserved” (p. 890). 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).…”

“…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). An answer to this question is that at the very least, coherence (but not necessarily “monolithic unification”) in any field can be achieved (a) at a conceptual level, by endorsing a set of shared core assumptions and conceptual systems (that would, e.g., rule out astrology from the cognitive sciences); (b) at an educational level, by exhibiting a set of shared basic core courses students (future scholars) have to take (e.g., for mathematics: algebra, calculus, etc.…”