Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive? Science?

  • Published:
Foundations of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cognitive Science is a promising field of research that deals with one of the most fundamental questions ever: how do beings know? However, despite the long and extensive tradition of the field it has not yet become an area of knowledge with scientific identity. This is primarily due to three reasons: the lack of boundaries in defining the object of study, i.e. cognition, the lack of a precise, robust and consistent scientific methodology and results, and the inner problems derived from its interdisciplinary nature. This paper presents a background review, a theoretical frame and a humble reflection on these topics in order to arouse the internal debate among readers once more.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. i.e. recognition of the set of its aims, concepts and methods as a different and separated approach from the current sciences or areas of knowledge.

  2. Journal of Cognition and Development, Cognitive Development Society, http://www.cogdevsoc.org/jcd/jcd-home.php.

  3. Cognitive Development Journal of the Jean Piaget Society, http://www.piaget.org/Journal/index.html.

  4. http://www.eucognition.org

  5. http://www.vernon.eu/euCognition/definitions.htm.

  6. http://www.floridainstitute.com

  7. http://www.braintumour.ca

  8. http://www.neuroskills.com

  9. http://allpsych.com

  10. It is widely accepted that the first steps of Cognitive Science happened at MIT during a symposium organized by the Special Interest Group in Information Theory, in 1956. However, it was not until 1976 that an official program was created with the Cognitive Science name, by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (for more details see Miller 2003).

  11. Please, consider this as a simple example and not as an inclination to any specific area.

References

  • Adams, F. (2010). Why we still need a mark of the cognitive. Cognitive Systems Research, 11, 324–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anscombe, G. E. M. (2000). Intention (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, D. M. (1961). Perception and the physical world. London: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, D. M. (1999). The mind-body problem: An opinionated introduction. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baars, B. J., Banks, W. P., & Newman, J. B. (2003). Essential sources in the scientific study of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, W. P., & Farber, I. (2002). Wiley comprehensive jandbook of psychology, experimental psychology, chapter consciousness, Vol. 4. New York: Wiley.

  • Bechtel, W. (2009). Constructing a philosophy of science of cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(3), 548–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, W. (2010). How can philosophy be a true cognitive science discipline? Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(3), 357–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, W., Mandik, P., & Mundale, J. (2001). Philosophy and the neurosciences. A reader, chapter philosophy meets the neurosciences (pp. 4–22). Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford

  • Boden, M. (2006). Mind as machine: A history of cognitive science. USA: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boden, M. A. (2009). Can machines think? an old question reformulated. Minds and Machines, 19(4), 453–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boysen, S. T., & Himes, G. T. (1999). Current issues and emerging theories in animal cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 683–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brook, A. (2009). Introduction: Philosophy in and philosophy of cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 216–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfill, S. (2007). What are modules and what is their role in development? Mind and Language, 22(4), 450–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casson, R. W. (1994). Psychological anthropology, chapter cognitive anthopology, Praeger.

  • Churchland, P. M., & Churchland, P. S. (1998). On the contrary: Critical essays 1987–1997. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, J. (2009). The turing test. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crevier, D. (1994). AI: The tumultuous history of the search for artificial intelligence. London: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, H. C., & Panksepp, J. (2011). Rethinking the cognitive revolution from a neural perspective: How overuse/misuse of the term ‘cognition’ and the neglect of affective controls in behavioral neuroscience could be delaying progress in understanding the brainmind. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(9), 2026–2035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Andrade, R. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (2001). Essays on actions and events (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D., & Kinsbourne, M. (1992). Time and the observer: The where and when of consciousnes in the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 183–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (2009). The part of cognitive science that is philosophy. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 231–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. (2008). LOT 2: The language of thought revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friedenberg, J. (2008). Artificial psychology: The quest for what it means to be human. Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis Group.

  • Fum, D., del Missier, F., & Stocco, A. (2007). The cognitive modeling of human behavior: Why a model is (sometimes) better than 10,000 words. Cognitive Systems Research, 8, 135–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science. A history of the cognitive revolution. London: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (2010). Psychology in cognitive science: 1978–2038. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(3), 328–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The import and export of cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 30, 983–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodson, F. E. (2002). The evolution and function of cognition. Taylor and Francis.

  • Harnad, S., & Scherzer, P. (2008). First, scale up to robotic turing test, then worry about feeling. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 44, 83–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, A. (2010). Can machines think? an old question reformulated. Minds and Machines, 20(2), 203–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iglesias, L. (2006). Ciencia cognitiva: Introducción y claves para su debate filosófico. Master’s thesis, Universidad de Navarra.

  • Illes, J., & Chin, V. (2007). Our aversion to the unfamiliar. American Scientist, 95(1), 87–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josephs, I. E. (2000). A psychological analysis of a psychological phenomenon: The dialogical construction of meaning. Social Science Information, 39(1), 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, A. (1992). The metaphysics of mind. Oxford Paperbacks.

  • Kozma, R., Tunstel, E., Aghazarian, H., Huntsberger, T., & Freeman, W. J. (2007). Computational aspects of cognition and consciousness in intelligent devices. IEEE Computatinal Intelligence Magazine, 2(3), 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marris, M., Pearson, H., Waldrop, M., Hayden, E. C., Schiermeier, Q., Baker, M., et al. (2008). Disputed definitions. Nature, 455, 1023–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (2003). A psychological analysis of a psychological phenomenon: The dialogical construction of meaning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 141–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B. (2011). Interdisciplinary studies. Seeking the right toolkit. Nature, 476, 115–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, N. (2007). 50 years of AI, chapter the physical symbol systems hypothesis: Status and prospects (pp. 9–17). Berlin: Springer.

  • Norman, D. A. (1981). Perspectives on cognitive science. USA: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, M. (2003). HCI models, theories, and frameworks: Toward and interdisciplinary science, chapter distributed cognition. Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, M. (2008). Extended cognition and the mark for the cognitive. Philosophical Psychology, 22, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. USA: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, R. (2004). Ablex Publishing Corporation. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(3), 136–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxe, R., & Baron-Cohen, S. (Eds.). (2007). Theory of mind, volume special issue of the Journal of Social Neuroscience. Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis Group.

  • Schunn, C. D., Crowley, K., & Okada, T. (1998). The growth of multidisciplinarity in the cognitive science society. Cognitive Science, 22(1), 107–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searl, J. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sellars, W. (1997). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Serrano, J. I. & del Castillo, M. D. (2011). Do artificial general intelligent systems really need to be conscious? In Proceedings of 3th international conference on agents and artificial intelligence (ICAART2011) (pp. 674–676). SciTePress.

  • Solomon, S. N. (2000). A brief history of cognitive anthropology. http://www.geocities.com/xerexes/coganth.html.

  • Sperber, D. (2003). Why rethink interdisciplinarity? http://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/1.

  • Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Cognitive psychology. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, R. (2009). Theoretical status of computational cognitive modeling. Cognitive Systems Research, 10(2), 124–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tedre, M. (2011). Computing as a science: A survey of competing viewpoints. Minds and Machines, 21(3), 361–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (2003). Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, chapter cognitive science. The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, winter 2003 edn.

  • Thagard, P. (2009). Why cognitive sceince needs philosophy and vice versa. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 237–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F. J. (1990). Beobachter, chapter on the conceptual skeleton of cognitive science. Munich: Wilhem Fink Verlag.

  • von Eckardt, B. (1993). What is cognitive science?. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarkoni, T., Poldrack, R. A., Essen, D. C. V., & Wager, T. D. (2010). Cognitive neuroscience 2.0: Building a cumulative science of human brain function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(11), 489–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been carried out within the framework of project funded by FGCSIC, Obra Social La Caixa and CSIC, and the project PIE 201050E087.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bioengineering Group, Consejo Superior de Invetigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Ctra. Campo Real km 0.200, La Poveda, 28500 , Arganda del Rey, Madrid, Spain

    J. Ignacio Serrano & M. Dolores del Castillo

  2. Philosophy Division, Secondary School Teacher Corps of Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Manuel Carretero

Authors
  1. J. Ignacio Serrano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Dolores del Castillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manuel Carretero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Ignacio Serrano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Serrano, J.I., del Castillo, M. & Carretero, M. Cognitive? Science?. Found Sci 19, 115–131 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-013-9323-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-013-9323-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation