Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: programs in cognitive science
Message-ID: <250@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 5 Aug 88 05:40:07 GMT
References: <GHH.88Jul16135559@confidence.princeton.edu> <536@buengc.BU.EDU> <3940@pdn.UUCP> <3958@pdn.UUCP>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Distribution: all
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 30

In article <3958@pdn.UUCP> colin@pdn.UUCP (Colin Kendall) writes:
>In article <3940@pdn.UUCP>, reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes:
>> In article <3939@pdn.UUCP> colin@pdn.UUCP (Colin Kendall) writes:
>> >In article <595@sdics.ucsd.EDU>, norman@sdics.ucsd.EDU (Donald A. Norman - danorman@ucsd.edu (or .bitnet)) writes:
>> >> [somebody else writes]
>> >> <<Ever notice how disciplines that have "science" in their names aren't? 
>> >> <<(Sciences,

And it goes on from there.

What does this debate tell us about the nature of Cognitive Science,
or Computer Science, or whatever?  Very little.  Everyone claims the
power of Humpty-Dumpty.

I have never seen an explicit definition of "science" which would let
Mathematics, Statistics, Operations Research, &c in, because they are
not experimental studies of material entities.  Does anyone want to
argue that they are therefore not quite as respectable as physics?

Computer Science:  if we spell it "Informatics" where's the problem?

Cognitive Science: but Cognitive Science, as opposed to AI, _does_
		   appeal to experimental data, or at least the work
		   done at Edinburgh under that label did when I was there.

It is arguable that Jurisprudence _is_ an experimental science (it attempts
to induce principles from the observed outcomes of trials, and may involve
test cases), and is on safer grounds than disciplines relying on surveys.

Do any of these names actually mislead anyone?