For the Sciences They Are A‐Changin': A Response to Commentaries on Núñez et al.'s (2019) "What Happened to Cognitive Science?". (8th July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Núñez, Rafael; Allen, Michael; Gao, Richard; Miller Rigoli, Carson; Relaford‐Doyle, Josephine; Semenuks, Arturs
• Is Part Of: Topics in cognitive science. Volume 12:Number 3(2020)
• Page Start: 790
• Page End: 803
• Publication Date: 2020-07-08
• Subjects: Cognitive science -- Multidisciplinarity -- Interdisciplinarity -- History of cognitive science -- Scientometrics -- Bibliometrics -- Curriculum -- College education; Cognitive science -- Periodicals; Cognitive Science -- Periodicals; 153.05
• DOI: 10.1111/tops.12511
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1756-8757

Abstract

Abstract: A recent issue of Topics in Cognitive Science featured 11 thoughtful commentaries responding to our article "What happened to cognitive science?" (Núñez et al., 2019). Here, we identify several themes that arose in those commentaries and respond to each. Crucial to understanding our original article is the fundamental distinction between multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary endeavors: Cognitive science began (and has stayed) as multidisciplinary but has failed to move on to form a cohesive interdisciplinary field. We clarify and elaborate our original argument and reiterate the importance of a data‐driven evaluation of the current status of the field, which exhibits a marked disciplinary imbalance, a lack of a coherent conceptual core, and a striking absence of a consistent curriculum in the institutions that grant degrees in this domain. Half a century after the creation of cognitive science, it may now be a good time to revisit goals and visions for how to best approach the ever‐fascinating scientific study of the mind(s).