Talk:Cognitive science

message: I think that some organiztion on the first part of this page could lead us to clearly lead us in the right direction to organize teh rest of the article. I also believe it could use more references and pictures. I would like to try and clean this article up so it's easier to read. A lot of work is needed but I think it is worth saving but I will need help. GreatBrittian16 (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Organiztion

message: I added a citation to information within this article that needed an outside source. I added citation number 9, found through a simple google search. Km4038b (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Citation

message: We are looking for a final round of voting before making a decisive move to change the definition of cognitive science.  See the last heading on this discussion page, under the title: "Current definition too narrow? Part #2" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cognitive_science#Current_definition_too_narrow.3F_Part_.23_2)    Thanks.
-- Contributions/Skychildandsonofthesun SKYchild  15:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ******VOTING NOW OPEN******

message: I changed the introduction with regards to the disciplines mentioned and their order. I deleted the 'especially neural networks' comment because cognitive science still draws a lot of inspiration from AI work that's based on other paradigms (cf. some GOFAI in language processing, Bayesian networks), and it's not necessary to make a division  in the introduction. I also deleted philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science because both seem of minor importance to me compared with philosophy of mind (philosophy of language could easily go in that list, and then you would have no less than 4 subfields). I added logic; how succesful logical methods are is disputed, but logic is nonetheless very important in the development of cognitive science. I also rearranged the order from what I thought most important to least important; this is of course controversial and highly subjective, and I'm open for suggestions. It might be more natural to stick related fields together.
As for the article, it covers the most important topics but it's very clear that it's written by people with different perspectives. Maybe we could work to make it more coherent, removing both symbolicist as well as embedded biases. It also needs expansion, I intend to add some to the AI section, and maybe to the linguistic section. Junes 15:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction text & balance 

message: Popper and Eccles, for The Self and It's Brain, and Knowledge and the Mind-Body Problem.
Hayek, for The Sensory Order
In the case of Hayek, Virginia Postrel quotes Pinker in an article in the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/01/11/friedrich_the_great/
Hayek's 1952 book, "The Sensory Order," often considered his most difficult work, foreshadowed theories of cognitive science developed decades later. "Hayek posited spontaneous order in the brain arising out of distributed networks of simple units (neurons) exchanging local signals," says Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker. "Hayek was way ahead of his time in pushing this idea. It became popular in cognitive science, beginning in the mid-1980s, under the names `connectionism' and `parallel distributed processing.' Remarkably, Hayek is never cited."
--Parker Whittle 22:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  added names 

message: I find the discussion of linguistics less than neutral. The discussion of what is (incorrectly) referred to as "Chomskyan psycholinguistics" is also inadequate and incorrect. It focuses on one method of data-collection, and says little about the content of the overall approach.  Being a researcher in the field, I find the statement that "[a]s of today cognitive linguistics is considered a proper cognitive approach to language rather than Chomsky's" hard to understand. If by "Chomskyan psycholinguistics" the author means generative grammar, the claim is certainly wrong, as the latter is a vivid field of intense research.  I will remove the statement I quoted and try to describe generative grammar in a way that better  fits my own impressions.  I also find that functional-cognitive linguistics is definded negatively, in terms of what the author dislikes about generative grammar.  Please compare the edits to verify that my changes improve neutrality and accuracy.--Neither 3 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)
I've renamed the section and added a link to theoretical linguistics primarily because issues of cognition original from, and are still quite importantly investigated in, the theoretical domains. Chomsky, as well as others, maintain quite strongly that by studying the theoretical nature of (knowledge of) language, and asking what characterizes possible human languages as a whole as separate from impossible human languages, that we're in a very real sense discovering what is a possible human mind. The overall section on language/linguistics-as-cogsci feels bit disjointed tho. I'm going to try to fix it up, if I have time. --Augur (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of  the linguistics section 

message: I haven't checked this page out in about a month, but when I did I noticed that someone had really ruined an excellent template for a general information page on cognitive science. I would like to understand why someone removed the list of institutions that promote cognitive science as well as a list of cognitive scientists. This is information that I know I would want to learn about if I were uninformed of the field. Also, the introduction was changed to some "cognitive science studies the brain" propaganda. There was also some misleading garbage about functionalism which, at best, could have been placed in the "History" section. What's up with removing the dynamic systems section? It seems that the latest page, before I reverted to an almagamation of work by wikipedians, was highly opinionated and biased. Be conservative with edits, don't go f*%#ing up other people's work.
:I made some of the changes you are talking about, but I'm glad you removed some other people's edits. I was responsible for moving the lists of things to their own pages. The general policy on Wikipedia is to avoid having lists of things in articles. See Wikipedia:Lists (embedded lists). From that page: "As a basic principle, you should avoid list-making in entries. Wikipedia is not a list repository." So, that was my reasoning for moving the lists to their own pages.
:As far as "cognitive science studies the brain" goes, I would say that a big part of cog sci is concerned with how the brain works and relating brain and behavior. All of cognitive neuroscience, for example. Imaging methods and studies all make reference to the brain. I kind of agree with you about removing the functionalism stuff. I'm a little confused though. Functionalism says that you can study cognitive events without making reference to the brain. Do you disagree with this? If so, wouldn't you agree that cognitive science necessarily studies the brain?
:I think we need a stronger definition of what cognitive science is to start with, and then we can figure out the best way this article should be written. To that end, I looked up the definition in several cognitive science text books:
:"Cognitive science is the study of human intelligence in all its forms, from perception and action to language and reasoning." Gleitman and Liberman, Invitation to Cognitive Science
:"Cognitive science is the study of intelligence and intelligent systems, with particular reference to intelligent behavior as computation." Posner, Foundations of Cognitive Science
:"Cognitive science is the multidisciplinary scientific study of cognition and its role in intelligent agency. It examines what cognition is, what it does, and how it works." Bechtel and Graham, A Companion to Cognitive Science
:"Cognitive science is the study of mental representations and computations and of the physical systems that support those processes." Martin and Rumelhart, Cognitive Science
:Based on this, and what we already have in the intro, I propose this intro section as being more refined than what we currently have:
::Cognitive science is the scientific study of the mind and the computational processes that give rise to intelligence (e.g. Luger, 1994; Bly & Rumelhart, 1999). Intelligence includes the processes of perception and action, learning, language processing, and reasoning, as well as many others. Cognitive science views these computations as forms of information processing and seeks to understand the relationship between information processing, behavior, and the physical systems that implement these processes.
::Cognitive science is highly interdisciplinary; it is often said to consist of, take part in, and collaborate with psychology (especially cognitive psychology), computer science (especially artificial intelligence), linguistics and psycholinguistics, philosophy (especially philosophy of mind), neuroscience, logic, robotics, anthropology and biology (including biomechanics).
:What do other people think?
:--dzou 22:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF? 

message: Lists, real quick. I did not see any clear links to these pages you created, and even after searching I made a conclusion that you just removed them. You are right about the list policy -- I didn't make the list, but I feel like it is a damn good resource to have. I appreciate such information, and what is an encyclopedia if not a reference on a topic? If anything, you could go through and make brief paragraphs on each of the people/institutions and then say "this is a stub" or whatever you want to call it. The important thing is that we preserve the information we already have and reorganize it somehow, not just remove it so no one will see it again.
:Sorry if the pages I made weren't clearly marked. If anyone wants to move the lists back to their own pages, the ones I created before are List of cognitive scientists and List of institutions granting degrees in cognitive science. The second one is really long-winded, and if anyone can come up with a shorter name, that would be wonderful.
a big part of cog sci is concerned with how the brain works and relating brain and behavior.
I agree, but that does not define Cognitive Science.
:Agreed. I think that's reflected in my new definition.
"Cognitive science is the study of mental representations and computations and of the physical systems that support those processes." Martin and Rumelhart
This is certainly biased since it is using the term computation. Cognition is not necessarily computed, and even if you were to defend  the use of such a term, most people have a biased view of computation as if it were only digital. Who said the brain is digital?
:The idea of computation is pretty central to the whole information processing approach that cognitive science is based on. Information processing is a form of computation, and the field is based on the idea that mental "things" can be studied in these terms.
Cognitive science is the scientific study of the mind and the computational processes that give rise to intelligence (e.g. Luger, 1994; Bly & Rumelhart, 1999).
This referencing doesn't make sense. It sounds like Lugar is supporting computational processes, too. Did he? If you are a PhD student you should be aware of these things.
:You're right the referencing doesn't make sense. None of the definitions, including Luger's, completely agree with each other. That said, I think it's important to have a definition that everyone in the field would agree with. If there are cognitive scientists out there that think computation isn't the right way to study the mind, that's fine; I don't really know if that is the case. Here is my proposed revised definition of cognitive science:
::Cognitive science is the scientific study of the mind and the processes that give rise to intelligence (e.g. Luger, 1994). Intelligence includes the processes of perception and action, learning, language processing, and reasoning, as well as many others. Cognitive science typically views these processes as computations in terms of information processing and seeks to understand the relationship between information processing, behavior, and the physical systems that implement these processes.
Sure you should look for other opinions since this is only my view. Take care!
:You and I seem to be the only ones talking about it at the moment. Hello other Wikipedians? --dzou 16:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Changes 

message: It is interesting how very different this topic looks in the different language versions, such as the french, german and swedish articles on this topic.DanielDemaret 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different 

message: shouldn't the part concening the term either be worked into the first - historical - paragraph or should even better the article get an autonomous paragraph which focusses on the history of the term itself at the top? anyway - where was that 'first entry' in 1586? --cousin  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.170.86 (talk) 21:08, May 17, 2006 
:I feel this entire page needs to be overhauled. About the only quality part is the introductory paragraph, and even that is a bit confusing since Artificial Intelligence is within the realm of Computer Science. Dan 06:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognitive Science: the Term 

message: What is up with the illustration?  The man and the robot with the brain don't seem directly applicable to anything.  Is there a picture of a brain without the cartoon embellishments?  Alex Dodge 18:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  The illustration is distracting, huge on the page and I don't see what it has to do with cog sci. It does not improve the article in any way.--Gloriamarie 01:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration 

message: I removed the following paragraph from the #Learning and development section, as I cannot find any sources that Manzo and ReQuest are significant.  I'm sure the cognitive apprenticeship article says nothing about it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manzo 

message: Anybody know in what way "associative" is being used in this quote from the article?
The first is focused on abstract mental functions of an intelligent mind and operates using symbols, and the second, which follows the neural and associative properties of the human brain, and is called subsymbolic.
--Ty580 (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Associative properties of the human brain" 

message: 2 or 3 or 4 ! :) Emesee (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  columns-list 3 on the see also 

message: The "Rendering of Human Brain" graphic at the top of the article is NOT actually a picture of the Human Brain, unless someone would like to explain why there isn't a central sulcus on this poor individual, and why the Lateral/Sylvian fissure is half the size of the entire cortex??? Besides, the picture is unnecessarily philosophical. I recommend a regular, formal skin-tone drawing like the ones that appear in textbooks instead of a levitating giant's demented brain. But that's just me...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.140.228 (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is a Giant Mutated Monkey Brain Rendering picture at the top of a Cognitive Science article?? 

message: The cognitive science society lists education as one of the disciplines which is embraced by cognitive scientists, should it be included in the list of disciplines in the first paragraph on this page? ----Action potential  discuss contribs 13:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cognition is indeed very important in education. The work of Jean Piaget on cognitive development may in particular be relevant. However, on the other side, education may also only considered as an application domain of cognition? --Nabeth (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education in list of fields? 

message: (Moved this from the top of the talk page to improve the flow. -- dzou (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to read wp:lead (in particular the Opening paragraph guideline). It's true that " the study of mind or the study of thought" is a useless definition, but take care not to make it something overly specific - the lead is section is intended for people without any previous knowledge on the subject. I prefer your (1) approach, it's more descriptive.  Diego (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What is going on with this first sentence?????

message: How about, instead of the brain, an image like this one is used?  I'm not sure the weak versus strong link idea is valid anymore.  Also education is left out (it's included on the cogsci society page).  I think it would be nice to have an image which quickly illustrates the different fields involved and the idea (I'm not sure it's held by all...) of cogsci as a matchmaker between disciplines. --Andy Fugard (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At first I was ready to vigorously defend the mutated monkey brain as I have done many times in the past, but to be honest your new image is growing on me... except one crucial point.  I firmly believe that the education node should be replaced with, "computer science."   Although cognitive science can be applied to teaching/pedagogy it also can be applied to anything in this world that is influenced by thinking (politics, marketing, criminology) and so it is an application of cognitive science, not a founding discipline.  I recommend replacing it.  -- Contributions/Skychildandsonofthesun SKYchild  03:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the artificial intelligence image and text already covers it.  Not all aspects of computer science are directly relevant to cognitive science, and the inclusion of AI probably includes the most important aspects of CS.  Conversely, education is important not just for the Piagetian ideas mentioned above, but also within the work of knowledge theorists like Phillip Johnson-Laird and Paul Thaggard.  In addition, recent work in educational cognitive neuroscience (for example, looking at how education may actually help to construct the adult literate, numerate brains that standard cognitive neuroscience studies), shows that education is not just an application of cognitive science, but also part and parcel of what it is that we are studying when we study human cognition, embedded in brains, but also with those brains embedded in a culture that educates them.  Edhubbard (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:   EdHubbard: you are absolutely right on both points.  When I looked at my watchlist today I was ready to defend the CS versus AI point (I was going to say that CS is the larger category of which AI is but a sub-set and that CS contributes to Cog Sci in areas other than just AI research) but after further consideration I think I actually disagree with my earlier point and agree with yours.  Namely that AI is the most relevant part of CS for Cog Sci.  I still think some other areas of CS are relevant though (the electrical engineering behind getting software to be implemented on hardware, or the computational theory stuff are two examples of non-AI, CS relevance to Cog Sci).  I'll let other editors pass judgment on the CS versus AI point.  But your defense of educational research as a contributor not just a benefactor of Cog Sci is absolutely correct.  Theories of learning, skill and expertise as well as the relevance of early childhood linguistic development research are just some examples.    Thanks EdHubbard for providing this perspective.  -- Contributions/Skychildandsonofthesun SKYchild  23:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The main pic 

message: First, I am not a Cognitive Science person.  I am a researcher in a related field who stopped to double-check the definition of Cognitive Science before referring a colleague to researchers in that field.  However, I added a holdon template to the request for speedy deletion of the main picture in the article because it meets none of the criteria for speedy deletion
Summarizing for each of the 8 criteria for files:
1. It is not (as far as I could see) redundant.
2. It is not corrupt or empty
3. The licensing is correct and even liberal
4. The licensing information is provided
5,6, & 7. The image is free so the "unused unfree," "missing non-free use rationale," and "Invalid fair-use claim" deletion rules do not apply
8. It is not duplicated in the commons.  (A search for Septagram did not turn up a copy.)
Glancing through the long discussion page, I was unable to find any rationale for the speedy deletion request.
However, my guess is that some editor decided to replace the "Mutated Monkey Brain" picture with this one, and some other editor stuck the speedy deletion tag on the image to declare that they disagreed.  If my suspicion is correct, then the proper procedure is a discussion and negotiation between the editors who frequent this page over what is an appropriate main image.
I think that whether the editors decide to keep the current Septagram image, it can remain on Wikipedia (or maybe in the commons) because it is free and might be useful to someone later on.  It looks like someone spent some time to gather the appropriate free images and combine them into a diagram.  It would be a shame to remove that work even if the editors decide not to use it for this particular part of this particular article.
I won't be involved in the discussion because I am currently swamped, but I wanted to keep someone's work from being unnecessarily deleted when all that may be called for is changing what image is used as the main image on the page.
BrotherE (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see the "Monkey Brain" image on my user page.  I personally think it is quite clever.  It conveys the self-referential nature of cognitive science: brains thinking about how brains work.  -- Contributions/Skychildandsonofthesun SKYchild  01:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion of Main Picture 

message: Any reason why "The undergraduate portal into graduate cognitive science", a recent addition, should be included in the external links? I excluded it from a recent WP:ELNO purge, but a second opinion would be welcome. Does it offer a "unique resource" (as WP:ELNO has it) or is it just WP:SPAM? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's borderline.  There are clearly some good things in there, like the brief history of cognitive science, and some career stuff, but I'm not sure that it is really a critical link to include either.  It's certainly not WP:SPAM in the traditional sense, since it is a link to an academic program not a profit-making venture, but I'm not convinced that it is a truly "unique resource" either.  Conversely, I did reinstate the link to the Cognitive Science Society, since this is the academic society that goes along with the article topic.  In general, I think less we should have as little as possible, but not less.  ICOGSCI might be expendable. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  reply2: The link to Roy Ruddle's history of cog sci page is broken.  I've found his personal page at Leeds here, but cannot find the old history page.  Rather than deleting that link, I've just tagged it with a deadlink template. Edhubbard (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICOGSI 

message: The main picture at the top of the page shows 7 different sciences supposed to be a part of cognitive science. Someone has made this picture a map area where each part of the picture is supposed to link to the correct article on wikipedia, but the mapping is off. When hovering over the picture I can indeed find a circle with all the 7 links, but all of the links are located in the top left corner, above the Education icon. Hopefully somebody with more knowledge of how these things works will take the time to adjust the code so that the links are located where they should be, on top of each icon. It might be that my choice of browser affects if the code works or not (I'm using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.13) Gecko/20100914 SeaMonkey/2.0.8). -- Nillli (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this same problem (on this version of the article), using both Mozilla (3.6.8) and IE (8.0.blablabla) on a 1366x768 screen. Rather than try to debug the code, I just changed the picture to be a normal image with links in its caption. This fixes the problem (the links work now because they're not fancy), as well as allowing the user to reach the image page by clicking, which is desirable anyway because of licensing bla bla bla, and it is good to have a caption anyway. Seems like a good way to kill three birds with one very simple stone. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heptagram picture has bad link mapping 

message: I believe that info would be helpful to the reader, since CogSci is so new and fluid, there aren't too many schools around the world where it is seriously researched or even present.  It could be another section of the article, maybe? Capricornis (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about that, there are many serious psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, learning sciences, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and education departments in the world which are, by definition, contributing to cognitive science research.  I get what you mean though: specifically departments encouraging an interdisciplinary approach?  Yes would be useful.  But beware: many will not call themselves cognitive science departments so the search is non-trivial. --Andy Fugard (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Universities where Cognitive Science is being researched ? 

message: The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience says “the new sciences of the mind need to enlarge their horizon to encompass both lived human experience and the possibilities for transformation inherent in human experience.” 
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 
The fundamental concept of cognitive science is “that thinking can best be understood in terms of representational structures in the mind and computational procedures that operate on those structures.”
Thagard, P. Cognitive Science. (chap. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition) Cognitive Science) Retrieved Apr. 15, 2012, from http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=cognitive-science
Panthers8952Panthers8952 (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: The main image purports to be "adapted from a figure presented in the following article:
Miller, George A (2003). "The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective". TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7."
However, the figure as presented in Miller's article (which is freely available here: www.cs.princeton.edu/~rit/geo/Miller.pdf) is a hexagon, not a heptagon as in the image here, which adds "Education" to the six original disciplines. Miller's image also omits some of connecting lines between disciplines, which represented a lack of interdisciplinary work between those disciplines in the original version of the image from 1978.
I don't have a problem with the connecting lines in the image here, as other versions of the diagram have included them - see for example page 37 of Howard Gardner's The Mind's New Science (available on Google Books) - however, I know of no source which includes "Education" among the disciplines, nor does the link provided in the introductory section make mention of "Education" (or "Sociology" for that matter) as disciplines belonging to cognitive science.
If no other sources can be provided which explicitly include "Education" (or "Sociology") among the disciplines of cognitive science, I would ask that the creator of the image alter it to more accurately reflect the image upon which it is based. I'm not terribly gifted in the visual arts, but I'll try my own hand at an image if this goes a week or so without being addressed. For the sake of aesthetic integrity, I hope it doesn't come to this. --Charles Lowe (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research in main image (and introductory section)? 

message: Please see my question at Talk:Cognitive_ergonomics#Cognitive_engineering.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognitive ergonomics vs cognitive engineering 

message: This section has grown totally out of control, so I moved it from the article into the talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Further reading and put only entries that are topical, reliable and balanced, and keep the section limited in size. "Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all existing works." Also, if you wish to add an entry back into the article, please motivate why. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 08:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: There's a draft for an outline of cognitive science at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of cognitive science if anyone is interested. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft outline 

message: I expanded the list of cognitive scientists. I added a section containing the year of their contribution. Pertaining to history, the year in which a contribution was made shows us where we were at with the material at a certain point in time. Years of birth still need to be added, as well as links to articles about those scientists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spicypr45 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of cognitive scientists 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cognitive science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717134015/http://www.cognitivesciencesociety.org/about_description.html to http://www.cognitivesciencesociety.org/about_description.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article would be improved if the first paragraph clarified how cognitive science is a more all-embracing term than cognitive psychology. Vorbee (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinction needed

message: A stub article named Epistemics hasn't been updated in a while, and doesn't look like it will be in the future. The lede ties the concept to a department of cog sci at University of Edinburgh. I think the most promising topic anchor for the term is actually something in the body: A cognitive-science-friendly version of epistemology. I think the idea integrates very well with cognitive science, even though the content might need to be expanded a little. —Approaching (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporating [[Epistemics]] into Cognitive Science 

message: I half-expected the section on "Consciousness" to be bonkers, but it seems to be merely poorly written and a strange characterization of the subject matter.
"Consciousness is the awareness whether something is an external object or something within oneself. This helps the mind having the ability to experience or to feel a sense of self."
Surely someone can improve upon this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonnimartin (talk • contribs) 05:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text of "Consciousness" section is very poorly worded 

message: Wikipedia strives to be concise and to the point. With this in mind this article is in need of serious help. One suggestion would be to simplify the lead to the article. The simply put section at the end of the lead is very good and would serve as a better lead for this article. There would need to be a few things added to it to display the content of the article but it is much simpler then the original lead. Thoughts?
Jbarnesatm (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simply Put 

message: The section Naming is about the name "Epistemics". Given that Wikipedia is not about the etymology of word and that the subject is not named "Epistemics" anyway, I don't see the relevance of this section. Besides, the info provided is not verifiable and seems inaccurate. The first sentence says that "Epistemics is a term coined in 1969 by the University of Edinburgh with the foundation of its School of Epistemics", but I easily found a  1966 book by Patrick Meredith in which he wrote "The investigation might be called 'The epistemology of documentary communication'. For short I have called it 'Epistemics'." In fact, Meredith explains that he first coined the term in 1948: "Some of my thoughts on his work were embodied in a paper (Meredith, 1949) to the Aristotelian Society in 1948, "A Revision of Spearman's Noë genetic Principles," in which I first explicitly named "Epistemics," intending to make it a science of experimental Epistemology." Or if we still want to say something about the connection with Epistemics, at the least we should be accurate.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the section Naming

message: The article says that:
: "Popular names in the discipline of psychology include George A. Miller, James McClelland, Philip Johnson-Laird, Lawrence Barsalou, Vittorio Guidano, Howard Gardner and Steven Pinker. Anthropologists Dan Sperber, Edwin Hutchins, Bradd Shore, James Wertsch and Scott Atran, have been involved in collaborative projects with cognitive and social psychologists, political scientists and evolutionary biologists in attempts to develop general theories of culture formation, religion, and political association."
This goes completely unsourced, which allows Wikipedia editors to cherry-pick whichever scientist they think is the most important. Does anyone know of a source that lists influential scientists in this field?--Megaman en m (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This encyclopedia article lists old and current leaders in the field until 2003. Weidorje (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced list of "popular" psychologists 

message: After some careful research you can understand that Cognitive Science studies Computer Science, mainly Artificial Intelligence. However, the current picture only depicts AI, rather than Computer Science. I find this really confusing, because it’s impossible to understand the current AI implementations without learning Computer Science. AI nowadays is a blob of mathematics and code (software) and I can argue that will be like that forever… saying that we learn AI without learning computer science seems like we learn how to open and prompt chatGPT instead of learning how it works.
Reasoning, I believe that a better picture should be chosen to illustrate properly what we really learn and study. If you look at the following links you'll understand that we actually study Computer Science:
https://www.ucdavis.edu/majors/cognitive-science#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20interdisciplinary%20study,how%20the%20mind%20determines%20behavior
or
https://guide.berkeley.edu/undergraduate/degree-programs/cognitive-science/ 79.169.33.125 (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change main picture