Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!gollum!rolandi
From: rolandi@gollum.UUCP (Walter Rolandi)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng
Subject: scientific content of cognitive science
Message-ID: <141@gollum.UUCP>
Date: 4 Aug 88 13:17:25 GMT
Reply-To: rolandi@gollum.UUCP (Walter Rolandi)
Organization: e&m columbia
Lines: 27

><<Ever notice how disciplines that have "science" in their names aren't? 
><<(Sciences,
>
>Ever get tired of hearing this old chestnut?  I do.  Especially as:
>1. It isn't true.
>     Those who like the statement cite whatever field they think most
>     poorly of, ignoring the earth sciences, the space sciences, etc.  In
>     addition, their definition of science is highly idiosyncratic and
>     suspect.  The National Academy of Sciences, for example, has no
>     problem with fields with the word "science" (or "-ology) in their
>     name)

Does the National Academy of Sciences recognize astrology?

Come on, Dr. Norman, pompous personal attacks make for pretty bad science.
Perhaps another scientist would have offered to provide data that support
the hypothesis that cognitive science is in fact science.  Is there a body of 
data that defines cognitive science?   Is there agreement as to what this 
science studies?  Is there a common methodology for measurement,
experimentation, and data analysis?  

In the case of cognitive science, the null hypothesis is still easy to prove.

Walter Rolandi
rolandi@ncrcae.UUCP 
rolandi@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM
NCR Advanced Systems Development, Columbia, SC