Talk:Situated cognition

message: I think the affordance/effectivities section is too long. It should be edited down. Furthermore I think less in text citation should occur so it reads as a definition rather than a biography of GibsonJgmac1106 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I came to this article after it was linked to Community of practice.  Aside from the fact that it is poorly laid out (the introduction for example) it is clearly a POV article for a particular take on a theory.  Historical context is missing, some of the quoted sources (Dewy for example) are being tacked onto an exposition of an ideology.  A quick web search provides much better and more balanced descriptions.  Now its not my field and I have other pages that I more interested in, but this needs editors who understand the subject to do some drastic editing work.  The table is a good example of the point.  The "good stuff" is the left and the "evil bad stuff" is on the right with an either/or presentation rather situating the approach in a much wider and more diverse context.  It requires drastic editing with a reduction in advocacy for a POV and a greater focus on neutrality.  --Snowded (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: I'm not convinced this article is unduly biased. I can see where Snowded is coming from, but I think there are a couple of things he has overlooked.
First, it is common in intellectual history that a new idea defines itself by saying what it is not, by rejecting a "tradition" of some kind or other. For example, phenomenology rejects "metaphysics", complexity economics rejects "traditional economics", monotheism rejects "idolatry", computational intelligence rejects "good old fashioned artificial intelligence". The enemy is often only loosely defined, a grand lump of assumptions that may never have been explicitly stated. The enemy may not even be a position that any serious thinker would defend, yet is somehow implicit in the work. This is normal and commonplace.
Second, it is also common for researchers in one area to be ignorant of ideas in other areas. In this article, most of the central citations seem to come from educational psychology. It seems entirely possible to me that researchers in this field aren't particularly up on Andy Clark or the Churchlands. They may have never contrasted their work against these people. So the key question is, can we find a a reliable source that contrasts "situated cognition" against the Churchlands? Or behaviorism? Or enactivism?  Or cognitivism? Or functionalism? Or situated robotics? Answer: maybe not. If we can't find a reliable source that contrasts these ideas (a survey, or an introduction, or something), then Wikipedia has nothing to report: to do so would be a WP:SYNTHESIS -- original researrch.
The point is Wikipedia must define situated cognition as it is defined by those who defend it and those who attack it. Using their words and their omissions, their sloppy thinking and their straw men. We can't bring up people who aren't part of that debate. Now, I'm not familiar with the literature on situated cognition, but I am familiar with intellectual history, and it doesn't seem implausible to me that this article presents it subject as fairly as Wikipedia can. While I agree that this article could use some work (for example, I think it needs a real source that criticizes situated cognition. It needs to distinguish precursors (like Dewey) and sympathetic thinkers (like embodied cognition) from people who actually defend a position they themselves call situated cognition. The article also relies too heavily on lists and tables and de-contextualized quotes. All of this criticism is fair.) I don't think Snowded has shown that the article is biased. The  should be removed. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see a reasoned argument.  I'm happy to look at replacing the biased tag with another indicating that it needs a lot of work in the hope that someone will put some work in on it.  I agree with your removal of the "come and get" us section at the end.  --Snowded (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

text: OK I have changed the tag, removed some hyperbole from the introduction, changed the table title and marked that as questionable.  Hopefully someone will now work o this --Snowded (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same issue, different take 

message: To this unsigned claim of bias, I simply point out that the 1st row of the Table is a comparison of Intelligence, and the quote for cognitivism is take from Ormrod's textbook, used in many undergraduate courses on the subject. It not only makes sense, but is a primary source for teaching about the topic.  --UConnMike (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please give specifics to bias claims 

message: I'm surprised comments such as this stand here unaddressed when the Edit button affords everyone the opportunity to improve column 2 of the table by composing the well reasoned argument for cognitivism that was posited to be so sorely missing! - --64.252.17.173 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participation Obviously needed 

message: I'm also surprised that no additions or amendments have been made to this entry for over a year. Stability itself should attest to the accuracy of the article. Even it's sole detractor has not seen fit to change even 1 word of the article, except repeatedly placing a bias tag on it.  If the article is biased, as only 1 person has claimed, then have at it! Change the unfair statements to fair ones!  That challenge has stood the test of time-- no changes in a year.  Time to quit flagging it as biased if no bias can be found to change.
--UConnMike (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may just be that no one is interested in it.  A lot of wikipedia articles end up like that.  Until someone cares for it and works on it then it won't improve.  Stability does not equal accuracy!  lovely idea, must remember that one.    I work on a lot of articles and monitor a lot more, so do other editors.  Best think you can do (as you obviously care for it) is to work on it.  Happy to comment/help out but not lead that.  Incidently please read WP:GF   --Snowded TALK 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well there you have it. If Snowded doesn't like then... it's no good. But Snowded won't give even 1 detail about what's wrong... but is "happy to comment/help" as long as that comment is simply to allege a problem.  Great contribution... thanks for all the help. But seriously... what IS the sentence, phrase, reference or paragraph where bias is alleged?  Should not some definition of bias include some statement that is provably false or unsupported by research?  Please state where that statement is, so that work by fresh contributors can begin to correct it? --UConnMike (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you check back UConnMike you will see that I did make it clear why I applied the tag.   You just return to the article every month or so and make the same complaint but in the meantime take no action which is surprising.  If I recall it was originally put together fairly quickly as a student project and it reflects that.  Again please read WP:GF  --Snowded TALK 06:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If YOU check back Snowded you will see that you DID NOT state any specific word, sentence, phrase, reference, paragraph or conceptual statement where you allege bias. You will also see repeated requests for this information so that your issue(s), once concretely given, could be addressed. But instead, bias tag... vague statement about bias, is what you have provided. That's obstruction, not editing. It's opinion that this article is biased, without concrete examples. In short, no work has been done because only obstruction and not help or editing has occurred. --64.252.18.207 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've made the reasons very clear and they were not vague.  I have seen no one try and address the problem.  Just one a month (or longer) someone pops back not to deal with content issues but instead makes statements about other editors.   As a matter of interest, is this IP UConnMike or someone else?  --Snowded (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  One man holding hostage 

message: This article is not bad but it need some reworks. It not very easy to follow. For example, that table should give a definition of its "Schema, info. processing)". What does it means? What is the schema approach?
Not obvious. Some other stuff could be made clearer too. 206.248.135.249 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some reworks 

message: Seems like alot of changes have been made. Time to revisit the dispute of bias, I'd suggest. --UConnMike (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial Revision Completed 

message: The sentence in the introduction about the SitCog collection seemed to be more promotional than informative. I removed it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgmac1106 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Collection Sentence

message: Substituted at 06:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: How does situated cognition "requires an epistemological shift from empiricism"? This isn't explained. Is there source for this statement? 
--DracoDruida (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I originally wrote that sentence. It does not belong in the lede. I will revise Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empiricism