[C] [Wittrs] Re: Cognitive science

From: "J" <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:12:47 -0000
Sean,

I probably ought not to have tossed in a jab like that and perhaps should 
simply withdraw it, first, because it's not a topic I much care to discuss but 
having made the remark, I ought to be willing to defend it; second, because 
it's liable very quickly to get entangled existing threads I wish to avoid; 
third, because a wide range of activities and research are described as 
"cognitive science" and to simply dismiss it all as "stupid" would be 
asshattery on my part, but what I said is too easily read that way; and fourth, 
because to the extent that there are real philosophical confusions at work in 
"cognitive science", a simple dismissal is wholly inappropriate.

At the same time, you've politely asked for some elaboration and I think it 
right that I provide that.

My issue with "cognitive science" in general, apart from any particular 
philosophical misunderstandings that may go under that name, is the self-image 
of philosophy that it represents.  It presents itself as an interdisciplinary 
field, embracing cognitive psychology, linguistics, computer science, and so 
on, along with philosophy.

Now, to the extent that the role of philosophy here is something like the 
philosophy of science, i.e. an inquiry into the methods and concepts of the 
natural and social sciences, that's fine.  A Mach, a Hertz, or an Einstein 
considered such questions alongside questions specific to physics and there's 
no reason not to think that philosophers and scientists in collaboration might 
not benefit in an analogous way.

But the role of philosophy in such an enterprise is not like this. Rather the 
philosopher-cum-"cognitive scientist" fancies himself as a collaborator in 
constructing theories regarding the nature of mind, thought, and so on, 
presents himself as contributing not just to human understanding but to human 
knowledge.

To the extent that he does so, he is a, e.g. a psychologist, by my lights, but 
the self-image of philosophy as "cognitive science" rests on the sophistical 
arguments of Quine, which purport to demonstrate a seamlessness between 
empirical and conceptual investigations and call for a "naturalistic turn" in 
philosophy.

Of course, if I may speculate, circumstances beyond the acceptance of Quinean 
arguments about analyticity or undetermination may motivate such a turn.  By 
linking philosophy with research into AI and such, philosophers can claim for 
their work potential significance to military and commercial interests.  No, we 
aren't just wasting the kids' time having them reading dusty old books, 
examining pointless questions posed by ancients, or worrying about nuances of 
meaning, we are forging ahead to the future, we're about progress, discovery... 
and all that good shite!

It is more this sort of attitude to which I was alluding in my ill-advised 
remark.  I hope that is adequate explanation.

JPDeMouy

PS  As my exchanges with Kirby may indicate to someone who cares enough to 
notice, I am not opposed to interdisciplinary discussion and not opposed to 
philosophy having relevance to science education or technological progress.  I 
want to be clear about that.  If philosophy has value in unexpected ways, 
that's all well and good.  It is this need to justify philosophy in those terms 
and the attendant muddles about what philosophy is and can do to which I object.


> J wrote: "Politics being what they
> are though, many philosophers would rather identify
> themselves with stupidities like so-called "cognitive
> science", doing "important" work."
>
> ... could you give us a little more here? What
> makes cognitive science objectionable in your view? (Just
> wanting a little more info. I'm not sure what these issues
> are).



=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
[C] [Wittrs] Re: Cognitive science

Other related posts:
