Area 51 » Science

258

followers

Announcements

I'd substitute linguistics for learning science. – Charles Stewart Jun 7 '10 at 18:58

I'd class computer questions related to cognitive topics as on-topic as long as it wasn't strictly about the programming. – David Thornley Jun 23 '10 at 3:30

Technically linguistics, philosophy, education, and anthropology should all be included. See the cognitive science society's webpage cognitivesciencesociety.org/index.html . At the very least, learning science should be replaced with some subset of those fields. – mpacer Jan 16 '11 at 11:16

show 4 more announcements

merged with Psychology Dec 20 '11 at 19:04
merged with Psychology and Psychiatry Dec 20 '11 at 19:03

This proposal is now in the Beta phase — example questions are locked!

50 Example Questions (10 closed)

active oldest votes

up vote 0 down vote

added by CharkAttax Jan 16 '11 at 10:17

This should be a comment, not a proposed qn. – Charles Stewart Jan 17 '11 at 6:42

up vote 0 down vote

added by mpacer Jan 16 '11 at 10:59

up vote 0 down vote

added by mpacer Jan 16 '11 at 11:00

up vote -1 down vote

added by Mark Rogers Jan 12 '11 at 22:58

up vote -1 down vote

added by mpacer Jan 16 '11 at 11:00

NaGE: Too broad, too subjective. – Charles Stewart Jan 17 '11 at 6:45

up vote -2 down vote

added by kadaj Jan 11 '11 at 6:08

Extremely vague, no detail, no reference to any literature. – richiemorrisroe Jan 12 '11 at 13:32

up vote -3 down vote

added by Jeromy Anglim Jun 3 '10 at 1:58

Could this question be more specific, thus altering enough to be on-topic? – IAbstract Jun 3 '10 at 23:15

I just think this question is too easily answered with a yes. – IAbstract Jun 7 '10 at 23:21

This is way too broad and amateurish at the same time. Read any literature on the Cog.Sci it will contain TONS of discussions about this. – zvolkov Jun 17 '10 at 18:44

Just to be clear, I posted this question to promote discussion. I agree the question is amateurish. – Jeromy Anglim Dec 31 '10 at 2:45

up vote -3 down vote

added by zvolkov Jun 21 '10 at 23:06

closed as off topic by Heath Hunnicutt, Christian, Jonas, Cerin, morfu Aug 22 '10 at 11:43

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

	I think this is thematically there, but a little too subjective... – Tom Boardman Jul 8 '10 at 2:15
	This question can't be answered until we genetically engineer talking bats. – Cerin Aug 4 '10 at 18:23
	Talking is the least problem :D "feel like" requires compatible "feeling" which can't be guaranteed even between humans I suppose – naugtur Aug 11 '10 at 13:03
	Actually this is the classical Cognitive Science question asked in the 1974 by Thomas Nagel. <quote>In "What is it Like to Be a Bat?", Nagel argues that consciousness has essential to it a subjective character, a what it is like aspect. He states that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism."</quote> -- the fact that it was rated as an off-topic shows how little the audience of stackoverflow intersects with the experts of the subject matter of this proposed Q&A site. – zvolkov Sep 27 '10 at 20:21
	@zvolkov: Good titles for articles are not often good questions for this kind of Q&A site. I've not voted any which way on this question, but I'd be better disposed to the question if it read "What do cognitive scientists make of Nagel's Bat essay today?" – Charles Stewart Sep 28 '10 at 7:45

show 1 more comment

up vote -4 down vote

added by David McDavidson Jun 17 '10 at 18:21

	WAY to broad! Besides, the science is NOWHERE NEAR reaching a consensus on this yet! – zvolkov Jun 17 '10 at 18:42
	As far as I know lots of scientists interested in that topic gave up on seeking a definition – naugtur Aug 11 '10 at 13:04

up vote -5 down vote

added by Jeromy Anglim Jun 3 '10 at 1:57

closed as off topic by Charles Stewart, IAbstract, dbkk, David Thornley, Jim G. Jun 26 '10 at 12:39

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

Although cognitive science does include philosophical considerations, this question is too general – Jeromy Anglim Jun 3 '10 at 3:20

Questions on free will are separate from cognitive science, IMO, delving a bit more into the philosophical side than this proposal might expect. – IAbstract Jun 7 '10 at 23:20

This is way too broad and amateurish at the same time. Read any literature on the Cog.Sci it will contain TONS of discussions about this. – zvolkov Jun 17 '10 at 18:45

This site should be quantitative, and since "free will" has no clear quantified definition, it's not an appropriate topic. – Cerin Aug 4 '10 at 18:25

I wouldn't say the topic is unappropriate, the question is just too broad as it is. There is plenty of scientific literature on free will. For instance, the early work of Libet and colleagues in the '80s (e.g. Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act - Brain 1983). An interesting assay on this was published a while ago on Nature: nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/… . – nico Sep 25 '10 at 13:42

show 1 more comment