Can the Interdisciplinarity of Cognitive Science Be Saved Through Deconstruction?

• Authors: Przemysław R. Nowakowski

Abstracts

EN

This paper discusses the resources for deconstruction offered by cognitive science, drawing inspiration from David Gunkel’s work on the topic (Deconstruction, MIT Press 2021). The gesture of deconstruction is seen as having a positive impact on the development of this interdisciplinary field by challenging misleading dichotomies and examining its underlying assumptions, such as the symmetry of integration.

Keywords

EN

deconstruction; interdisciplinarity; cognitive science; integration; symmetry

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
• Journal: Studia Philosophiae Christianae
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 58
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 137-144

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Przemysław R. Nowakowski

• Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii -

• https://orcid.org/0000000227149222

References

• Abrahamsen, A.A. (1987). Bridging boundaries versus breaking boundaries: Psycholinguistics in perspective. Synthese, 3(72), 355-388.
• Ballantyne, N. (2019). Epistemic trespassing. Mind, 128(510). DOI10.1093/mind/fzx042.
• Barsalou, L.W. (2010). Introduction to 30th anniversary perspectives on cognitive science: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(3), 322-327. DOI10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01104.x.
• Bermúdez, J.L. (2014). Cognitive science: An introduction to the science of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Boden, M.A. (1999). What is interdisciplinarity?. In: R. Cunningham (ed.), Interdisciplinarity and the organization of knowledge in Europe, 13-24. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
• Boon, M. (2020). The role of disciplinary perspectives in an epistemology of scientific models. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3(10), 1-34. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00295-9).
• Cohen-Cole, J. (2007). Instituting the science of mind: intellectual economies and disciplinary exchange at Harvard’s Center for Cognitive Studies. The British Journal for the History of Science, 4(40), 567-597. (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087407000283).
• Freeth, R., Caniglia, G. (2020). Learning to collaborate while collaborating: advancing interdisciplinary sustainability research. Sustainability Science, 1(15), 247-261. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00701-z).
• Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.
• Gentner, D. (2010). Psychology in cognitive science: 1978-2038. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(3), 328-344. (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01103.x).
• Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2016). Interdisciplinary success without integration. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3(6), 343-360. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0139-z).
• Keyser, S.J., Miller, G.A., Walker, E. (1978). Cognitive science, 1978: Report of the state of the art committee to the advisors of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Retrieved from http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/misc/Cognitive-Science1978_OCR.pdf.
• Mäki, U. (2016). Philosophy of interdisciplinarity. What? Why? How?. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3(6), 327-342. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0162-0).
• Mäki, U., Walsh, A., Pinto, M.F. (eds.). (2017). Scientific imperialism: Exploring the boundaries of interdisciplinarity. London – New York: Routledge.
• Miller, G.A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(7), 141-144. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00029-9).
• Nowakowski, P.R. (2019). Epistemic Challenges: Engaging Philosophically in Cognitive Science. Ruch Filozoficzny, 2(75), 237-255. (https://doi.org/10.12775/RF.2019.032).
• Núñez, R., Allen, M., Gao, R., Miller Rigoli, C., Relaford-Doyle, J., Semenuks, A. (2019). What happened to cognitive science?. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(8), 782-791.
• Porcelli, A.M., Teller, A.S. (2019). Asymmetric Epistemology: Field Notes from Training in Two Disciplines. Perspectives on Science, 2(27), 187-213. (https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00305).
• Schmidt, J.C. (2011). What is a problem? On problem-oriented interdisciplinarity. Poiesis and Praxis, 4(7), 249-274. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-011-0091-0).
• Thompson Klein, J. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In: R. Frodeman, J. Thompson Klein, and C. Mitcham (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 15-30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Van den Besselaar, P., Heimeriks, G. (2001). Disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary: Concepts and indicators. In: Paper for the 8th conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics – ISSI2001, Sydney. Australia, July 16-20, 2001, 705-716.

Identifiers

DOI

10.21697/spch.2022.58.A.15

Biblioteka Nauki

22768857