rolandi@gollum.UUCP (Walter Rolandi) (08/04/88)
><<Ever notice how disciplines that have "science" in their names aren't? ><<(Sciences, > >Ever get tired of hearing this old chestnut? I do. Especially as: >1. It isn't true. > Those who like the statement cite whatever field they think most > poorly of, ignoring the earth sciences, the space sciences, etc. In > addition, their definition of science is highly idiosyncratic and > suspect. The National Academy of Sciences, for example, has no > problem with fields with the word "science" (or "-ology) in their > name) Does the National Academy of Sciences recognize astrology? Come on, Dr. Norman, pompous personal attacks make for pretty bad science. Perhaps another scientist would have offered to provide data that support the hypothesis that cognitive science is in fact science. Is there a body of data that defines cognitive science? Is there agreement as to what this science studies? Is there a common methodology for measurement, experimentation, and data analysis? In the case of cognitive science, the null hypothesis is still easy to prove. Walter Rolandi rolandi@ncrcae.UUCP rolandi@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM NCR Advanced Systems Development, Columbia, SC
norman@sdics.ucsd.EDU (Donald A. Norman - UCSD Department of Cognitive Science) (08/05/88)
I have apoligized in private, but let me make it public. I clearly over-reacted to the science statement. The best defence of any field is not through clever arguments, but by pointing to solid accomplishments. So, let us await the future of Cognitive Science (and all disciplines) and hope for those accomplishments (and help bnring them about). My apologies for falling prey to the common affliction of the net: flaming. don norman