...
【24h】

Rumors of Our Death…

机译:我们死的谣言......

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Nunez and colleagues (2019) question whether cognitive science still exists "as a coherent academic field with a well-defined and cohesive interdisciplinary research program." This worry may be premature on two grounds. First, we are not convinced that the Lakatosian criterion of coalescence around a core framework is the best standard for judging whether a field is well-defined and productive. Second, although we acknowledge that cognitive science is not as visible as we would like, we doubt that this low profile accurately reflects the state of actual research and teaching programs based on the cognitive science approach.
机译:Nunez及其同事(2019年)问题是认知科学仍然存在“作为一个连贯的学术领域,具有明确界定和凝聚力的跨学科研究计划。”这种担忧可能会在两个场地上过早。首先,我们不相信核心框架周围的聚结的Lakatosian标准是判断场景是否定义和生产性的最佳标准。其次,虽然我们承认认知科学并不像我们希望的那样可见,但我们怀疑这种低调准确地反映了基于认知科学方法的实际研究和教学计划的状态。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号