Cognitive Science: Research Programmes, Stratified Disagreement, and Ur-Questions
Cognitive science as a cluster of competing research programmes rather than a unified discipline.
Cognitive Science: Research Programmes & Stratified Disagreement
Cognitive science is better understood as a cluster of competing research programmes than a unified discipline. These programmes disagree not just on facts, but on deep commitments regarding what is real (Ontology), what counts as an answer (Explanation), and how to investigate (Methodology).
The "Hard Core" Stratification
| Layer | What it settles | Example Disagreement |
|---|---|---|
| Ontological | What cognition is | Computation vs. coupling |
| Explanatory | What counts as explanation | Mechanism vs. optimality proof vs. phase portrait |
| Methodological | How to investigate | Behavioral experiments vs. dynamical modeling |
These come apart. Two researchers can share ontology (representationalism) but diverge on explanatory norms (mechanistic vs. computational-level). Different components have different rigidity.
The Five Programmes
Classical/Symbolic
Cognition is rule-governed symbol manipulation.
Connectionist
Cognition is pattern transformation across distributed representations.
Bayesian
Cognition is approximate optimal inference under uncertainty.
Embodied/Enactive
Cognition is inseparable from bodily action and environmental coupling.
Dynamical Systems
Cognition is continuous state-space evolution.
Programme Relations
Relations are a partial order, not pure rivalry:
- Bayesian & Connectionist: Complementary across Marr levels.
- Embodiment: Often about scope (boundaries) rather than mechanism.
- Dynamical Systems: A mathematical vocabulary applicable within multiple ontologies.
This dissolves pseudo-debates (Bayesian vs. connectionist) while preserving genuine ones (classical vs. radical enactivism).
Case Study: Predictive Processing
PP attempts unification by straddling: Bayesian at computational level, Connectionist in implementation, Dynamical in mathematics.
However, there are limits to what it can absorb without becoming unfalsifiable:
- Radical enactivism's rejection of representational content.
- Strongly externalist claims where cognition crosses the skin.
- Social constitution of norms (are practices just "priors"?).
Hierarchy of Presupposition
| Level | Example | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Phenomenal | Behavioral regularities needing explanation | Minimal shared |
| Thin Theoretical | Adaptive coordination with environment | Already boundary-drawing |
| Thicker Framing | "Cognition", "Representation" | Contested |
| Programme-Specific | "How is X represented?" | Fully internal |
Critical Realism as Regulative Commitment
The Pragmatist View
Bracketing metaphysics reveals that theoretical questions lack determinate answers. Fertility is truth.
My Stance
Bracketing is epistemically modest, not ontologically deflationary. Cognitive mechanisms and social processes are real and stratified.
What this buys:
- Against instrumentalism: PP translating enactivism into priors might be wrong about the joints of reality, not just less useful.
- Differentiated realism: Methodology is instrumental; Ontology tracks real mechanisms.
- Unified stance: Experiments and ethnography are probing different strata of the same reality.