Advertisement

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 517–537 | Cite as

The cognitive integration of scientific instruments: information, situated cognition, and scientific practice

  • Richard Heersmink
Article

Abstract

Researchers in the biological and biomedical sciences, particularly those working in laboratories, use a variety of artifacts to help them perform their cognitive tasks. This paper analyses the relationship between researchers and cognitive artifacts in terms of integration. It first distinguishes different categories of cognitive artifacts used in biological practice on the basis of their informational properties. This results in a novel classification of scientific instruments, conducive to an analysis of the cognitive interactions between researchers and artifacts. It then uses a multidimensional framework in line with complementarity-based extended and distributed cognition theory to conceptualize how deeply instruments in different informational categories are integrated into the cognitive systems of their users. The paper concludes that the degree of integration depends on various factors, including the amount of informational malleability, the intensity and kind of information flow between agent and artifact, the trustworthiness of the information, the procedural and informational transparency, and the degree of individualisation.

Keywords

Cognitive artifacts Scientific instruments Distributed cognition Extended mind Scientific practice 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank John Sutton and Richard Menary for constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and the Collective Cognition Group at Macquarie University for funding to write it. I also wish to thank three anonymous reviewers. The second reviewer, in particular, gave very helpful feedback.

References

  1. Ackerman, R. (1985). Data, instruments, and theory: A dialectical approach to understanding science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnau, E., Estany, A., Gonzalez del Solar, R., & Sturm, T. (2014). The extended cognition thesis: its significance for the philosophy of (cognitive) science. Philosophical Psychology, 27(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baird, D. (2003). Thing knowledge: Outline of a materialist theory of knowledge. In H. Radder (Ed.), The philosophy of scientific experimentation (pp. 39–67). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beisbart, C. (2012). How can computer simulations produce new knowledge? European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2, 395–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boon, M. (2004). Technological instruments in scientific experimentation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18(2–3), 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter, J. A., Kallestrup, J., Palermos, S. O., & Pritchard, D. (2014). Varieties of externalism. Philosophical Issues, 24(1), 63–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charbonneau, M. (2013). The cognitive life of mechanical molecular models. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(4), 585–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheon, H. (2014). Distributed cognition in scientific context. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 45(1), 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, A. (2007). Re-inventing ourselves: the plasticity of embodiment, sensing, and mind. Journal of Philosophy and Medicine, 32(3), 362–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clowes, R. W. (2013). The cognitive integration of e-memory. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(1), 107–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giere, R. (2002a). Models as part of distributed cognitive systems. In L. Magnani, N. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Giere, R. (2002b). Scientific cognition as distributed cognition. In P. Carruthers, M. Stich, & P. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 285–299). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harré, R. (2003). The materiality of instruments in a metaphysics for experiments. In H. Radder (Ed.), The philosophy of scientific experimentation (pp. 19–38). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  16. Heersmink, R. (2013). A taxonomy of cognitive artifacts: function, information, and categories. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(3), 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heersmink, R. (2014). Dimensions of integration in embedded and extended cognitive systems. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. doi: 10.1007/s11097-014-9355-1.Google Scholar
  18. Holmes, F. L., Renn, J., & Rheinberger, H. J. (Eds.). (2003). Reworking the bench: Research notebooks in the history of science. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Humphrey, P. (2009). The philosophical novelty of computer simulation methods. Synthese, 169(3), 615–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kirsh, D. (1995). The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence, 73(1–2), 1–52.Google Scholar
  22. Kirsh, D. (2009). Problem-solving and situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 264–306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kiverstein, J., & Farina, M. (2011). Embraining culture: leaky minds and spongy brains. Teorema, 30(2), 35–54.Google Scholar
  24. Knuuttila, T. (2005). Models, representation, and mediation. Philosophy of Science, 72(5), 1260–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knuuttila, T. (2011). Modelling and representing: an artefactual approach to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42(2), 262–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Menary, R. (2007). Cognitive integration: Mind and cognition unbounded. New York: Palgrave McMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Menary, R. (2010). Dimensions of mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 561–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Menary, R., & Kirchhoff, M. (2014). Cognitive transformations and extended expertise. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(6), 610–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nersessian, N. J. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions. In M. Gorman, R. Tweney, D. Gooding, & A. Kincannon (Eds.), New directions in scientific and technical thinking (pp. 17–56). Mahway: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nersessian, N. (2009). How do engineering scientists think? Model-based simulation in biomedical engineering research laboratories. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 730–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peirce, C. S. (1935). The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce (Vol. 3). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pence, H. E., Williams, A. J., & Belford, R. E. (2015). New tools and challenges for chemical education: Mobile learning, augmented reality, and distributed cognition in the dawn of the social and semantic web. In J. García-Martínez & E. Serrano-Torregrosa (Eds.), Chemistry education: Best practices, opportunities and trends (pp. 693–734). Weinheim: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Perini, L. (2005). Explanation in two dimensions: diagrams and biological explanation. Biology and Philosophy, 20(2–3), 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pritchard, D. (2010). Cognitive ability and the extended cognition thesis. Synthese, 175(1), 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Record, I. (2010). Scientific instruments: knowledge, practice, and culture. Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, 4(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  37. Rowlands, M. (2009). Extended cognition and the mark of the cognitive. Philosophical Psychology, 22(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rupert, R. (2004). Challenges to the hypothesis of extended cognition. Journal of Philosophy, 101(8), 389–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sheredos, B., Burnston, D., Abrahamsen, A., & Bechtel, W. (2014). Why do biologists use so many diagrams? Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 931–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sterelny, K. (2010). Minds: extended or scaffolded? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Suarez, M. (2003). Scientific representation: against similarity and isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17(3), 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sutton, J. (2006). Distributed cognition: domains and dimensions. Pragmatics and Cognition, 14(2), 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sutton, J. (2010). Exograms and interdisciplinarity: history, the extended mind and the civilizing process. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 189–225). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sutton, J., Harris, C. B., Keil, P., & Barnier, A. J. (2010). The psychology of memory, extended cognition, and socially distributed remembering. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 521–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Toon, A. (2012). Models as make-believe: Imagination, fiction and scientific representation. New York: Palgrave McMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toon, A. (2014). Friends at last? Distributed cognition and the cognitive/social divide. Philosophical Psychology, 27(1), 112–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tweney, R., & Ayala, C. D. (2015). Memory and the construction of scientific meaning: Michael Faraday’s use of diaries and records. Memory Studies. doi: 10.1177/1750698015587149.Google Scholar
  48. Vorms, M. (2012). Formats of representation in scientific theorising. In P. Humphreys & C. Imbert (Eds.), Models, simulations, and representations (pp. 250–273). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Wilson, R., & Clark, A. (2009). How to situate cognition: Letting nature take its course. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 55–77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Winsberg, E. (2010). Science in the age of computer simulation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yeo, R. (2008). Notebooks as memory aids: precepts and practices in early modern England. Memory Studies, 1(1), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive ScienceMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations