Questions on the Nature of memory, personality, etc.

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Sun May 16 06:00:17 EST 2004


In article <85d56b27.0405160223.1885d517 at posting.google.com>, Robert 
M?rtin <robertmaertin at gmx.de> writes
>Even though you are right that the textbook - description of Cognitive
>Science indicates that it should be a dead field, I think our
>institute is a sign that we can just go on. Cognitive Science (at
>least in Germany) has uncovered its problems (mentioned above) all by
>itself. Now we need to go on. And why should we change the name ? We
>still want to explain human cognition !

Because it's essentially a malapropism?. If you look into some of the 
posts in comp.ai.philosophy you might get a better grasp of just how and 
why the debacle may have come about in the first place and why it isn't 
just a trivial matter. In its current form "Cognitive Science" is not 
merely badge engineered Behaviour Analysis and technology, but a 
hopelessly incompetent misappropriation and attempted replication to 
boot (As an aside, I assume you know the history of the "Gaz" Gorky 
motor car company and the USSR's absolute "hatred" of American 
capitalism? <g>)


>The growing influx of physicists, mathematicians, system scienctists,
>medical doctors and die hard engineers to cognitive science (and our
>institute) has brought productivity and clean experimental methods and
>replaced the overcome ideals of cognition as a symbol manipulation
>process.

You mean they do engineering and dress it up with hyperbole (including 
the term "cognitive")? Why do they do that? To make it more sexy? To 
sell it more easily? Cut out all the mentalistic verbiage and what are 
you actually left with that's usable?

-- 
David Longley



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list