Psychology is – and should be – central to cognitive science
Main Article Content
Abstract
Abstract: Cognitive science is typically defined as the multidisciplinary study of mind, with the disciplines involved usually listed as philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, linguistics, and anthropology. Furthermore, these six “core disciplines” are generally regarded as having equal status vis-à-vis cognitive science. In contrast to the latter position, I argue that psychology has a special status here: it is central to cognitive science in a way that none of the other five disciplines is. I support this argument via both theoretical and empirical considerations.
Keywords: Psychology; Cognitive Science; Interdisciplinarity/Multidisciplinarity
La psicologia è – e dovrebbe essere – al centro della scienza cognitiva
Riassunto: La scienza cognitiva viene definita comunemente come indagine multidisciplinare sulla mente e tra le discipline che vi sono coinvolte vengono solitamente indicate la filosofia, la psicologia, l’intelligenza artificiale, la neuroscienza, la linguistica e l’antropologia. Queste sei “discipline fondamentali” sono generalmente considerate come aventi pari dignità nell’ambito della scienza cognitiva. A dispetto di quest’ultima posizione sosterrò, invece, che alla psicologia vada riconosciuto uno status speciale: la sua importanza per la scienza cognitiva è tale da non poter essere eguagliata da nessuna delle altre cinque discipline. A supporto di questa posizione porterò alcune riflessioni di natura teoretica ed empirica.
Parole chiave: Psicologia; Scienza cognitiva; Interdisciplinarità/Multidisciplinarità
Downloads
Article Details
Issue
Section
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication for the printed and the electronic version simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this Journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) as it can lead to productive exchange, as well as earlier and more extensive citation of published work (cf. The Effect of Open Access). After the conclusion of the double blind peer review procedure, they can self-archive any version of their work: the published version as well as the pre-print (pre-refereeing) and the final draft post-refereeing.
How to Cite
References
CHOI, B.C.K., PAK, A.W.P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. In: «Clinical and Investigative Medicine», vol. XXIX, n. 6, pp. 51-364.
CHOMSKY, N. (1966). Aspects of the theory of syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).
COLLINS, A. (1977). Why cognitive science?. In: «Cognitive Science», vol. I, n. 1, pp. 1-2.
COLTHEART, M., DAVIES, M. (2021). Failure of hypothesis evaluation as a factor in delusional belief. In: «Cognitive Neuropsychiatry», vol. XXVI, n. 4, pp. 213-230.
COOPER, R. (2019). Multidisciplinary flux and multiple research traditions within cognitive science. In: «Topics in Cognitive Science», vol. XI, n. 4, pp. 869-879.
DALE, R. (2021). The mindset of cognitive science. In: «Cognitive Science», vol. XLV, n. 4, Art.Nr. e12952 - doi: 10.1111/cogs.12952.
FODOR, J.A., GARRETT, M., BEVER, T.G. (1968). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. II: Verb structure. In: «Perception and Psychophysics», vol. III, n. 6, pp. 453-461.
FRENCH, R.M. (2019) Missing the forest for the trees: Why cognitive science circa 2019 is alive and well. In: «Topics in Cognitive Science», vol. XI, n. 4, pp. 880-883.
GARDNER, H. (1987). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution, Basic Books, New York.
GENTNER, D. (2010). Psychology in cognitive science: 1978-2038. In: «Topics in Cognitive Science», vol. II, n. 3, pp. 328-344.
GENTNER, D. (2019). Cognitive science is and should be pluralistic. In: «Topics in Cognitive Science», vol. XI, n. 4, pp. 884-891.
GOEL, A. (2019). A cognitive reformation. In: «Topics in Cognitive Science», vol. XI, n. 4, pp. 892-901.
HENRICH, J., HEINE, S.J., NORENZAYAN, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. In: «Behavioral and Brain Sciences», vol. XXXIII, n. 2-3, 2010, pp. 61-83.
HOFMANN, T., SCHOLKOPF, B., SMOLA, A.J. (2008). Kernel methods in machine learning. In: «The Annals of Statistics», vol. XXXVI pp. 1171-1220.
NUÑEZ, R., ALLEN, M., GAO, R., MILLER RIGOLI, C.G., RELAFORD-DOYLE, J., SEMENUKS, A. (2019). What happened to cognitive science?. In: «Nature Human Behaviour», vol. III, n. 8, pp. 782-791.
NUÑEZ, R., ALLEN, M., GAO, R., MILLER RIGOLI, C.G., RELAFORD-DOYLE, J., SEMENUKS, A. (2020). For the sciences they are a-changin’: A response to commentaries on Nuñez et al.’s (2019) “What happened to cognitive science?”. In: «Topics in Cognitive Science», vol. XII, n. 3, pp. 790-803.
ROSENBLOOM, P.S., FORBUS, K.D. (2019). Expanding and repositioning cognitive science. In: «Topics in Cognitive Science», vol. XI, n. 4, pp. 918-927.
STONE, T., YOUNG, A.W. (1997). Delusions and brain injury: The philosophy and psychology of belief. In: «Mind and Language», vol. XII, n. 3-4, pp. 327-364.
THAGARD, P. (2023). Cognitive science. In: E.N. ZALTA (ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Fall edition, 1996; substantive revision, 2023, Winter edition – URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ cognitive-science/
WOOD, S.M.W., WOOD, J.N. (2021). Distorting face representations in newborn brains. In: «Cognitive Science», vol. XLV, n. 8, Art. Nr. e13021 – doi: 10.1111/cogs.13021.