mdw@inf.rl.ac.uk (Mike Wilson) (08/12/88)
Whether Cognitive Science, Computer Science, Information Science, Domestic Science, Sociology, Astrology, or Scientology and sciences due to their degree of use of empirical methods, their discoveries, because one learned body or another recognises them, or by other criteria has always been an interesting question. Whether they become engineering subjects when taught, researched or practised is a variation on the theme. A second set of questions include: what was intended to be conveyed to the users/hearers of the terms when they were coined; why were those particular terms coined; what does it tell use about the coiners; what does it tell us about their views/expectations of the audience/hearers. If the terms contain the word "Science" did those who coined them intend them to "be" sciences, or merely intend the audience to "believe" they were. In either case, is the view of the audience held by the coiners one which considers that they will not have a strong enough view of what "Science" is to work out for themselves whether the fields are sciences or not. If the morpheme "-ology" is used the same argument exists with the addition of assumptions about the classical education of the audience and coiners. If the term "engineering" is used in the label, is it used to contrast with other fields labelled or considered by the audience to be "scientific" or is it used to sell the field to a new audience. In some older universities (Bologne, Oxford etc..) graduates in the areas refered to as Sciences (physics, chemistry etc ..) recieve arts degrees since they are only a style of philosophy (in these institutions science degrees are only given as either higher doctorates or as recently introduced consolation prizes at earlier stages). Don Norman is one of those whom I would suggest as being responsible for coining and publicising the current usages of both the terms Cognitive Science and Cognitive Engineering which are used in this mail community. In Europe other terms are used (at least in addition to these if not excusively) such as "Informatics" and "Cognitive Ergonomics". Did the people that coined these have a different view of their audience ? Do not the labels used for the fields tell us far more about the views the coiners of these terms have about themselves and their audience than about the subjects themselves?
spf@whuts.UUCP (Steve Frysinger of Blue Feather Farm) (08/16/88)
> A second set of questions include: what was intended to be conveyed to the > users/hearers of the terms when they were coined; why were those > particular terms coined; what does it tell use about the coiners; what does > it tell us about their views/expectations of the audience/hearers. Personally, I've always been rather sad that we couldn't still be called "Natural Philosophers", as was the case up through the 18th century. To my ears, it expresses the aspect of "science" that first drew me into it and that keeps me at it. It's been a few years since the work I was paid for qualified as "science", so it sure isn't the money that keeps me doing it on my own time! Steve Frysinger