Problems in the development of cognitive neuroscience: Effective communication between scientific domains
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 1986:183 - 197 (1986)
This is one of a series of reports of a case study of the convergence of molecular neurobiology and cognitive studies of Pavlovian conditioning. Here, I examine a fundamental disagreement between major centers of research representing each of these two domains and analyze it in terms of a hybrid historical, sociological, and philosophical concept of effective scientific communication. The specific example considered is found to fall short of the criteria for effective communication because of the absence of explicit, published reciprocity in the exchange of critical appraisal of results and in requests for reformulation of investigative priorities, research designs, and criteria of scientific adequacy. The situation is dramatized and a remedy proposed by means of an imaginary dialogue linking the two research centers. The paper raises a number of key issues. (1) means for appraising the epistemic status of explanations putatively linking domains in the absence of effective scientific communication; (2) the influence of socially contingent features of the cognitive perspectives of the relatively small number of scientific translators responsible for such communication between domains; and (3) the status of dialogues of the sort presented here, e.g., as idealized philosophical critique or conjectural history of the future of science
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Robert C. Richardson (2009). Multiple Realization and Methodological Pluralism. Synthese 167 (3):473 - 492.
Similar books and articles
Wendy Rogers & Angela Ballantyne (2008). When Is Sex-Specific Research Appropriate? International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1 (2):36 - 57.
Scott R. Stroud (2007). Dewey on Art as Evocative Communication. Education and Culture 23 (2):pp. 6-26.
Stephan Hartmann (2001). Effective Field Theories, Reductionism and Scientific Explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 32 (2):267-304.
Joëlle Vanhamme & Bas Grobben (2009). "Too Good to Be True!". The Effectiveness of CSR History in Countering Negative Publicity. Journal of Business Ethics 85 (2):273 - 283.
Marcelo Dascal, Transparency in Scientific Communication: From Leibnizג€™s Dream to Todayג€™s Reality.
Loet Leydesdorff (1996). The Possibility of a Mathematical Sociology of Scientific Communication. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 27 (2):243-265.
Martin J. Pickering & Nick Chater (1995). Why Cognitive Science is Not Formalized Folk Psychology. Minds and Machines 5 (3):309-337.
Dan Sperber, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi & Deirdre Wilson (2010). Epistemic Vigilance. Mind and Language 25 (4):359-393.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #381,316 of 1,793,000 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #463,828 of 1,793,000 )
How can I increase my downloads?