The Fate of Cognitive Science

Gaviour教授的研究重点是形式化的应用 统计学家、计算机科学家、 数学心理学家和科学哲学家（包括 PI和他以前的学生Kevin Kelly博士）， 认知心理学 具体来说，Gaviour教授是 调查当代认知科学 心理学可能不会成为一个成功的研究项目， 认知心理学家试图解决的问题 被他们所掌握的证据低估了。 在 从事这项当代认知心理学的研究， Gaviour教授使用西格蒙德·弗洛伊德的科学成果， 世纪之交作为一种方法论模式。 他 认为弗洛伊德的理论和方法论方法， 19世纪90年代在许多重要方面都是当代 认知心理学家 他进一步指出， 科学事业没有变成成功的研究 因为同样的原因，他认为 当代认知科学：问题是不确定的 被证据所证实 最后，他想论证的是， 当代认知心理学与弗洛伊德的观点 理论，即类似的目标和方法的局限性， 导致了当代科学中的这个问题。 的目的 研究并不是要论证当代认知心理学应该 不应该做或者不应该支持。 目的是 强调阐明替代方案的重要性， 坦率地考虑有多少或多少实验或一个 整个研究项目都可以区分这些 替代品.

The focus of Professor Glymour's study is the application of formal methods developed by statisticians, computer scientists, mathematical psychologists and philosophers of science (including the PI and his former student, Dr. Kevin Kelly) to aspects of cognitive psychology. Specifically, Professor Glymour is investigating the contexts in which contemporary cognitive psychology may not turn into a successful research program because the questions cognitive psychologists seek to address are radically underdetermined by the kind of evidence available to them. In undertaking this study of contemporary cognitive psychology, Professor Glymour uses Sigmund Freud's scientific efforts until the turn of the century as a kind of methodological model. He argues that Freud's theoretical and methodological approaches in the 1890s are in important respects those of many contemporary cognitive psychologists. He further suggests that Freud's scientific enterprise did not turn into a successful research program for the same reasons that he sees problems with contemporary cognitive science: the questions are underdetermined by the evidence. Finally, he wants to argue that it is just those points that contemporary cognitive psychology share with Freud's theory, i.e. similar goals and methodological limitations, that lead to this problem in contemporary science. The aim of this study is not to argue that contemporary cognitive psychology ought not to be done or ought not to be supported. The aim is to emphasize the importance of articulating alternatives and giving frank consideration to how much or how little an experiment or an entire research program can do to distinguish among these alternatives.