Cynthia Freeland said:
"By the way, a while back someone questioned whether Gregory Currie
could be a cognitive scientist given that he's a philosopher. This is
a false dichotomy."
If a philosopher addresses scientific issues, that makes him or her a
scientist? In my opinion, this is a misguided conflation. The fact
that cognitive scientists draw on philosophy does not make
philosophers cognitive scientists. Sure, if someone practices
scientific methods, he or she is a scientist in that capacity. If
Gregory Currie is getting involved in lab work, that's great.
Nevertheless, I still think that it is incorrect to refer to him as "a
prominent cognitive scientist" because he is primarily concerned with
philosophical issues. In fact, I would be very surprised if he found
that description appropriate for himself.
Cynthia went on to say:
"Any volume of key essays or basic readings in cognitive science is
bound to include essays by philosophers (Dennett, Fodor, the
Churchlands, etc. all spring to mind)."
This is flawed reasoning. Important papers on space travel don't have
to be written by astronauts and important books on art don't need to
be written by artists.
Cynthia also said:
"Not all cognitive scientists work in labs wearing white coats and
doing MRIs etc."
Actually, all cognitive scientists do need to be practicing
scientists. Writing about the philosophical implications of cognitive
science doesn't make the author a cognitive scientist.
BTW, despite the fact that Arthur Danto has published extensive works
on the history of science and current philosophical issues about
perception, I wouldn't call him a cognitive scientist either.
Glenn English
==============================================================
Post Message: Send a message to artwithbraininmind-l@pks.bu.edu
Web Archive: http://pks.bu.edu/artwithbraininmind-l
Unsubscribe: Send message to majordomo@pks.bu.edu with
'unsubscribe artwithbraininmind-l' in body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jul 25 2008 - 04:03:01 EDT