Theories and Theorizers: A Contextual Approach to Theories of Cognition

  • Joaquín Barutta
  • Carlos Cornejo
  • Agustín Ibáñez
Regular Article

Abstract

An undisputable characteristic of cognitive science is its enormous diversity of theories. Not surprisingly, these often belong to different paradigms that focus on different processes and levels of analysis. A related problem is that researchers of cognition frequently seem to ascribe to incompatible approaches to research, creating a Tower of Babel of cognitive knowledge. This text presents a pragmatic model of meta-theoretical analysis, a theory conceived of to examine other theories, which allows cognitive theories to be described, integrated and compared. After a brief introduction to meta-theoretical analysis in cognitive science, the dynamic and structural components of a theory are described. The analysis of conceptual mappings between components and explanation strategies is also described, as well as the processes of intra-theory generalization and inter-theory comparison. The various components of the meta-theoretical model are presented with examples of different cognitive theories, mainly focusing on two current approaches to research: The dynamical approach to cognition and the computer metaphor of mind. Finally, two potential counter arguments to the model are presented and discussed.

Keywords

Dynamical approaches to cognition Computer metaphor, meta-theoretical analysis Pragmatics Contextualism, cognitive science Conceptual mapping Explanation strategies 

References

  1. Agazzi, E., & Lenk, H. (1998). Advances in philosophy of technology. Philosophy & Technology, 4, 1–6.Google Scholar
  2. Amstrong, D., Stokoe, W., & Wilcox, S. (1994). Signs of the origin of syntax. Current Anthropology, 35, 349–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, M. (2003). Embodied cognition: a field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aravena, P., Hurtado, E., Riveros, R., Cardona, F., Manes, F., & Ibáñez, A. (2010). Applauding with closed hands: neural signature of action sentence compatibility effects. PLoS ONE, 5(7): e11751. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011751 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baake, A. (2003). Metaphor and knowledge: The challenges of writing science. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, P., & Moya, A. (1998). When context goes beyond cognition. NY: Brassel.Google Scholar
  7. Bahrick, H. P. (1987). Explaining context effects on short-term memory. In D. S. Gorfein & R. Hoffman (Eds.), Memory and learning: The Ebbinghaus centennial conference (pp. 387–395). New Jersey: Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Barutta, J., Gleichgerrcht E., & Ibáñez, A. (2010a). Neurodynamics of mind: the arrow illusion of conscious intentionality as downward causation. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44(2), 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barutta, J., Aravena, P., & Ibáñez, A. (2010b). The machine paradigm and alternative approaches in cognitive science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44(2), 176–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bechtel, W. (1998). Representations and cognitive explanations: assessing the dynamicist challenge in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 22, 295–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1993). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bem, S. (2001). The explanatory autonomy of psychology: why a mind is not a brain. Theory & Psychology, 11, 785–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boon, J. C. W., & Davies, G. (1988). Attitudinal influences on witness memory: Fact and fiction. In M. Gruneberg, P. Morris & R. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (pp. 53–58). Chisester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Bransford, J., McCarrell, N., Franks, J., & Nitsch, K. (1977). Perceiving, acting, and knowing. New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Breakspear, M., & Stam C. J. (2005). Dynamics of a neural system with a multiscale architecture. Philosophical Transactions el the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1457), 1051–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown, T. (2003). Making truth: Metaphor in science. Illinios: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  19. Carnap, R. (1967). The logical structure of the world and pseudoproblems in philosophy. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  21. Cornejo, C. (2004). Who says what the words say? The problem of linguistic meaning in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 14(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cornejo, C. (2006). Psychology in times of anti-mentalism. Social Practice/Psychological Theorizing, Article 3. Available at http://sppt-gulerce.boun.edu.tr.html
  23. Cornejo, C. (2007). The locus of subjectivity in cultural studies. Culture & Psychology, 13(2), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cornejo, C., Simonetti, F., Aldunate, N., Ibáñez, A., López, V., & Melloni, L. (2007). Electrophysiological evidence of different interpretive strategies in irony comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36(6):411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cornejo C., Simonetti F., Ibáñez, A., Aldunate N., Lopez V., Ceric, F., et al. (2009). Gesture and metaphor: electrophysiological evidence of N400 multimodal modulation . Brain and Cognition, 70(1), 42–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cosmelli, D., & Ibanez, A. (2008). Human cognition in context: on the biologic, cognitive and social reconsideration of meaning. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Sciences, 42(2):233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davidson, D. (1978). On metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Davidson, D. (1998). The myth of the subjective. In M. Krausz (Ed.), Relativism: Interpretation and confrontation (pp. 216–226). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  29. de Jong, L. (2001). A symposium on explanatory pluralism. Theory & Psychology, 11, 860–863.Google Scholar
  30. Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience. Scientific World Journal, 20(6), 1146–1163.Google Scholar
  31. Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  32. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  33. Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1990). Making a mind versus modeling the brain: Artificial Intelligence back at a branchpoint. In S. R. Graubard (Ed.), The artificial intelligence debate: False starts, real foundations (pp. 221–273). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  34. Dufey, M., Hurtado, E., Fernández, A. M. Manes, F, & Ibáñez, A. (2010). Exploring the relationship between vagal tone and event-related potentials in response to an affective picture task. Social Neuroscience, 23, 115.Google Scholar
  35. Duhem, P. (1905). La théorie physique: son objet, sa structure. Paris: Marcel.Google Scholar
  36. Echeverría, J. (1995). Filosofía de la Ciencia. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
  37. Edmonds, B. (1996). Pragmatic holism. Foundations of Science, 4(1), 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Eisemberg, A. (1992). Metaphor in the language of science. Scientific American, 266, 144–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1996). Conceptual structure, discourse, and language. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  40. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22, 133–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  42. Feyerabend, P. (1978). Against method. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  43. Freeman, W. J. (2003). A neurobiological theory of meaning and perception. Neural Networks, 2, 1373–1378.Google Scholar
  44. Freud, S. (1924). A general introduction of psychoanalysis. New York: Pocket Books.Google Scholar
  45. Gentner, D., & Jeziorski, M. (1993). From metaphor to analogy in western science. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 447–480). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Gershenson, C. (2004). Cognitive paradigms: which one is the best? Cognitive Systems Research, 5(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  49. Gigerenzer, G. (1991). From tools to theories: a heuristic of discovery in cognitive psychology. Psychological Review, 98, 254–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gigerenzer, G. (1992). Discovery in cognitive psychology: new tools inspire new theories. Science in context, 5, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12, 516–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Guerra, S., Ibáñez A., Martín M., Bobes M. A., Reyes A., Mendoza R., et al. (2009). N400 deficits from semantic matching of pictures in probands and first degrees relatives from multiplex schizophrenia families. Brain and Cognition, 70(2):221–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hooke, R. (1705). The posthumous works of Robert Hooke. London: Waller. original work published 1682.Google Scholar
  54. Horgan, J. (2001). La mente por descubrir. Barcelona: Ediciones Paidós Ibérica.Google Scholar
  55. Hurtado, E., Gonzalez, R., Haye, A., Manes, F., & Ibanez, A. (2009). Contextual blending of ingroup/outgroup face stimuli and word valence: LPP modulation and convergence of measures. BMC Neuroscience, 10, 69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ibáñez A. (2007a). The neurodynamic core of consciousness and neural darwinism. Revista de Neurología (Behavioral Neurology), 45(9), 547–555.Google Scholar
  57. Ibáñez, A. (2007b). Complexity and cognition: mind and brain as a topological dynamical system. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 11(1), 51–90.Google Scholar
  58. Ibáñez, A. (2008). Dinámica de la Cognición. Santiago de Chile: JCSaez.Google Scholar
  59. Ibáñez, A., & Cosmelli, D. (2008) Moving beyond computational cognitivism: understanding intentionality, intersubjectivity and ecology of mind. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Sciences, 42(2), 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ibáñez, A., Lopez, V., & Cornejo, C. (2006). ERPs and contextual semantic discrimination: evidence of degrees of congruency in wakefulness and sleep. Brain and Language, 98(3), 264–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ibáñez, A., Haye, A., González, R., Hurtado, E., & Henríquez, R. (2009a). Multi-level analysis of cultural phenomena: the role of ERP approach to prejudice. The Journal for Theory in Social Behavior, 39, 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ibáñez, A., Escobar, J., Riveros, R., & Barutta, J. (2009b) Aproximaciones multinivel y socio-neurociencias: Integrando niveles biológicos y sociales. Santiago de Chile: JCSaez Editor.Google Scholar
  63. Ibáñez, A., Manes, F., Escobar, J., Trujillo, N., Andreucci, P., & Hurtado, E. (2010a). Gesture influences the processing of figurative language in non-native speakers. Neuroscience Letters, 471, 48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ibánez, A., Riveros, R., Aravena, P., Vergara, V., Cardona, J. F., García, L., et al. (2010b). When context is hard to integrate: cortical measures of congruency in schizophrenics and healthy relatives from multiplex families. Schizophrenia Research. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2010.04.008
  65. Ibáñez, A., Toro, P., Cornejo, C., Urquina, H., Manes, F., Weisbrod, M., et al. (2010c). High contextual sensitivity of metaphorical expressions and gesture blending: a video ERP design. Psychiatry Research, Neuroimaging, 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2010.08.008
  66. Ibáñez, A., Gleichgerrcht, E., Hurtado, E., González, R., Haye, A., & Manes, F. (2010d). Neural markers of early contextual blending: N170 modulation of ingroup/outgroup relative position and associated valence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 188. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Indurkhya, B. (1992). Metaphor and cognition. An interactionistic approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  68. Iverson, J. (1999). Hand, mouth, and brain: The dynamic emergence of speech and gesture. In R. Núñez & W. J. Freeman (Eds), Reclaiming cognition: The primacy of action, intention and emotion (pp. 34–41). South Dakota: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  69. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Dover.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  71. Johnson, M. (1991). Knowing through the body. Philosophical Psychology, 4, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Memory metaphors and the real-life/laboratory controversy: correspondence versus storehouse conceptions of memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19(2), 167–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  74. Kuhn, T. (1983), Commensurability, comparability, communicability. In P. D. Asquith & T. Nickles (Eds.), Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1982 (pp. 669–688). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  75. Lakatos, I. (1983). La Metodología de los Programas de Investigación. Madrid: Alianza.Google Scholar
  76. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  78. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1998). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  79. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  80. Leary, D. (Ed.). (1990). Metaphors in the history of psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Leech, R., Mareschal, D., & Cooper, R. P. (2008). Analogy as relational priming: a developmental and computational perspective on the origins of a complex cognitive skill. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(4), 357–378.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Locke, J. (1975). An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford: Clarendon. original work published 1690.Google Scholar
  83. Longo, G. (1999). Mathematical intelligence, infinity and machines: beyond the gödelitis. Mathematical intelligence, infinity and machines: beyond the gödelitis. Journal of Consciousness Studies (special issue on cognition), 6, 11–12.Google Scholar
  84. Longo, G. (2003). In Space and time in the foundations of mathematics, or some challenges in the interactions with other sciences, First American Math. Soc./SMF meeting, Lyon.Google Scholar
  85. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind what gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  86. McNeill, D. (2000). Language and gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Moulines, C. U. (1991). Pluralidad y recursión. Madrid: Alianza.Google Scholar
  88. Neisser, U. (1984). Interpreting Harry Bahrick’s discovery: what confers immunity against forgetting. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 113, 32–35.Google Scholar
  89. Neisser, U. (1988). The ecological approach to perception and memory. New Trends in Experimental and Clinical Psychiatry, 4, 153–166.Google Scholar
  90. Nerlich, B., Johnson, S., & Clarke, D. (2003). The first ‘designer baby’: the role of narratives, clichés and metaphors in the year 2000 media debate. Science as Culture, 12, 471–498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1961). Computers and thought. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  92. Núñez, R. (2004). Do real numbers really move? In F. Iida, R. Pfeifer, L. Steels & Y. Kuniyoshi (Eds.), Embodied artificial intelligence (pp. 54–73). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Paton, R., Nwana, H., Shave, M., & Bench-Capon, T. (1994). An examination of some metaphorical contexts for biologically motivated computing. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45, 505–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Petruccio, S. (1993). Atoms, metaphors, and paradoxes: Niels Bohr and the construction of a new physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Polanyi, M. (1968). Logic and psychology. American Psychologist, 23, 28–3.Google Scholar
  97. Polanyi, M. (1969). Knowing and being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  98. Polanyi, M. (1970). Science and man. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 63, 969–976.Google Scholar
  99. Polanyi, M. (1974). Personal knowledge. Towards a post critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  100. Quine, W. (1951). Two dogmas of empirisism. The Philosophical Review, 60, 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Quine, W. (1969). Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction: An analysis of the foundations of the structure of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Riveros, R., Manes, F., Hurtado, E., Escobar, Reyes, M., Cetkovich, M., et al. (2010). Context-sensitive social cognition is impaired in schizophrenic patients and their healthy relatives. Schizophrenia Research, 116, 297–298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Roediger, H. L. (1980). Memory metaphors in cognitive psychology. Memory & Cognition, 8, 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Rohrer, T. (2001). Language and ideology: Cognitive theoretic approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  106. Rohrer, T. (2002). The cognitive science of metaphor from philosophy to neuroscience. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 6, 234–294.Google Scholar
  107. Root-Berstein, R. (2003). Metaphorical thinking. American Scientist, 16, 234–239.Google Scholar
  108. Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  109. San Martín, R., Manes, F., Hurtado, E., Isla, P., & Ibáñez, A. (2010). Size and probability of rewards modulate the feedback error-related negativity associated with wins but not losses in a monetarily rewarded gambling task. NeuroImage, 51, 1194–1204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Searle, J. (1978). Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 1, 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Searle, J. (1991). Response: The background of intentionality and action. In Lepore & Van Gulick (Eds.), John Searle and his critics (pp. 289–299). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  112. Searle, J. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  113. Skarda, C. A., & Freeman, W. J. (1987). How brains make chaos in order to make sense of the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 161–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Smith, E. R., & Collins E. C. (2009). Contextualizing person perception: distributed social cognition. Psychological Review, 116(2), 343–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Sneed, J. (1971). The logical structure of mathematical physics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  116. Stegmüller, W. (1976). The structure and dynamics of theories. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  117. Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: The mind-as-body metaphor in semantic structure and semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  118. Turvey, M. T. (2007). Action and perception at the level of synergies. Human Movement Science, 26(4), 657–697.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Venville, G., & Treagust, D. (1997). Analogies in biology education: a contentious issue. The American Biology Teacher, 59, 282–287.Google Scholar
  120. Wilcox, P. (1993). Metaphorical mappings in american sign language. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
  121. Wilcox, P. (1996). Not from Jove’s brow. Language & Communication, 26,179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Winograd, E. (1988). Continuities between ecological and laboratory approaches to memory. In U. Neisser & E. Winograd (Eds.), Remembering reconsidered: Ecological and traditional approaches to the study of memory (pp. 11–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joaquín Barutta
    • 2
    • 4
  • Carlos Cornejo
    • 5
  • Agustín Ibáñez
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 6
  1. 1.National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET)Buenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, Institute of Cognitive Neurology, INECOBuenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.Neuroscience LaboratoryUniversidad Diego PortalesSantiago de ChileChile
  4. 4.Laboratory of Epistemology and History of Medicine (LEPHIM), Instituto Universitario del Hospital Italiano de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  5. 5.Escuela de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  6. 6.Laboratory of Experimental Psychology & Neuroscience Institute of Cognitive Neurology (INECO) & CONICETBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations