The report Luisa Montecucco put on the table the most basic question of all: what are we talking about?
It 'clear that the use of the singular (cognitive science) or plural (cognitive sciences) is not a mere matter of form. If we use the singular, we think that there is already a ' only science that studies the facts "cognitive." If so, we could also say that it is an interdisciplinary science because it comes from a combination of theories and methods from various disciplines (such as psycholinguistics, psychology and even that is not linguistic, although related with both). Instead it is an interdisciplinary because our various disciplines working together on a common object, which conventionally call "cognitive processes", although this would be discussed.
This collaboration takes place from different points of view, that is, using different methods, languages, criteria for making "scientific" than common sense to what we say.
Luisa asked what place could be philosophy, a discipline ("naturalization") waiting for the results of cognitive science to comment on and rate? discipline (epistemology), which analyzes methods of cognitive science and languages? or a cognitive science like the others, which also occupies the mind and knowledge? It seems to me that Louise leant to the latter possibility, and I would agree.
We must not be seduced by the word "science" in this context. I understand this word as a synonym for "knowledge tool", not as an institutionalized system of certain knowledge. Personally (not the philosopher) believe that the peculiarities of the philosophical in our case (as elsewhere) does not concern the object of study - that is the same (still call it "cognitive processes", in order to find a better definition ) - but in different ways to claim their own reasons. The scientist shows you are right trying to bring empirical evidence, the philosopher shows they're right, bringing the arguments (logical, dialectical, sometimes rhetorical ...). The scientist tries to show how he is solving problems, find the philosopher's always new problems to solve ... It is an approach that is right and one wrong ... are "knowledge tools" different.
0 comments:
Post a Comment