Area 51 » Science

256

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

50 Example Questions (10 closed)

active newest votes

up vote 21 down vote

added by Charles Stewart Jun 7 '10 at 19:23

	I think it is a good on-topic question but seems to invite some subjective answers. Might be better to ask What age range do... – IAbstract Jun 7 '10 at 23:22
	I agree with the comment, and will vote if the question is changed – robin girard Jun 21 '10 at 6:47

up vote 20 down vote

added by Christian Jul 9 '10 at 15:49

up vote 19 down vote

added by Randolpho Jun 2 '10 at 14:25

Deals with natural language processing in artificial intelligence – Randolpho Jun 2 '10 at 14:26

Essentially another programming-related question. I dunno, "You can ask the question as long as there's no code involved" seems a bit arbitrary. How would you represent the algorithms, with mathematical equations? Pseudocode? – Robert Harvey Jun 2 '10 at 20:08

@Robert Harvey: Well... yes. Math, drawings, jargon, prose. Anything but code. Code is for StackOverflow. – Randolpho Jun 2 '10 at 21:54

I don't think this is a programming question: it's asking about what features a formal representation needs to handle a syntactic phenomenon. So, on topic. – Charles Stewart Jun 7 '10 at 18:52

Isn't this too computer-science-centric? – zvolkov Jun 17 '10 at 18:46

show 1 more improvement suggestion

up vote 19 down vote

added by Good Person Jun 2 '10 at 15:34

up vote 18 down vote

added by Octaflop, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Aug 7 '10 at 15:14

	While an interesting question for those who are interested into user-interaction design, it's not really the question that experts would ask each other. It's also very broad. – Christian Jul 9 '10 at 15:54
	@Christian: Funny. Yesterday I had almost this exact discussion with my two PhD advisors. One is a cognitive research professor, and the other is a neuroscientist. – Ofri Raviv Aug 4 '10 at 17:03
	Too general... There are entire fields dedicated to this question (HF/HCI). How about "What is a good introductory HCI text?" – Jeff Nov 9 '10 at 21:41

up vote 14 down vote

added by Randolpho Jun 2 '10 at 14:27

This one might be too broad to be answered, but it's on topic. – Randolpho Jun 2 '10 at 14:27

Isn't this too computer-science-centric? – zvolkov Jun 17 '10 at 18:43

cog-sci and computer science are related fields; programming is off topic, but general computation, particularly artificial intelligence, is on topic. – Randolpho Jun 28 '10 at 16:03

up vote 13 down vote

added by Jeromy Anglim Jun 3 '10 at 1:55

	Isn't this too computer-science-centric? – zvolkov Jun 17 '10 at 18:43
	@zvolkov I put forward the question because I can think of several papers in cognitive science journals that have modelled the task. IMO The topic of cognitive architectures should be well within the ambit of the site. – Jeromy Anglim Dec 16 '10 at 6:23

up vote 11 down vote

added by Charles Stewart Jun 7 '10 at 19:13

	This question is pretty broad. However, empirical evidence in cognitive and individual differences psychology would provide a reasonable answer. – Jeromy Anglim Aug 24 '10 at 9:26
	I voted for it, although I am not totally certain it is on topic. IQ really is a rating system, and the link between it and cognitive ability is questionable according to who you talk to. – Kevin Aug 26 '10 at 0:38

up vote 9 down vote

added by Ofri Raviv, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Nov 10 '10 at 0:41

This paper from neuron cell.com/neuron/retrieve/pii/S0896627310002850 claims it is possible, but our experience from the lab says otherswise. We have tried to replicate the results of this research but failed - all subjects were at chance level. What other evidence for or against learning of noise do you know of? – Ofri Raviv Aug 4 '10 at 17:13

up vote 8 down vote

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

	does not need the word good, IMO – IAbstract Jun 7 '10 at 23:10
	@dboar-FissureStudios: Asking for a definition about a popular definition of neuroplasticity and asking about a good definition are two different questions. mindhacks.com/blog/2010/06/… is a good article to explain what the question is about. – Christian Jul 10 '10 at 11:18

up vote 6 down vote

added by zvolkov Jun 17 '10 at 18:41

	This was a great book, and a hearty introduction to consciousness theories. Look into the “shared circuits” and “embodied cognition” views of consciousness. They seem to be gaining a lot of popularity. – Octaflop Jun 24 '10 at 2:29
	thanks, Octaflop, I'm checking out Shared Circuits Model – zvolkov Jun 25 '10 at 15:24

up vote 5 down vote

added by Jeromy Anglim Jun 3 '10 at 1:56

up vote 5 down vote

added by Clinton Jun 3 '10 at 10:44

Obviously not a duplicate of area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/2149/… -- however, it expects a definition and therefore not unique. – IAbstract Jun 3 '10 at 23:20

up vote 5 down vote

added by nico Sep 25 '10 at 13:45

up vote 5 down vote

added by IntellSpire Nov 20 '10 at 13:16

up vote 4 down vote

added by Jeff Nov 9 '10 at 23:22

up vote 3 down vote

added by albert green, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Nov 10 '10 at 0:42

closed as off topic by Charles Stewart, zvolkov, Ofri Raviv, Nick H, Pierre 303 Nov 11 '10 at 22:27

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.

Just a little note to clarify this. Teaching children simple tricks from Game Theory, to understand better life at early stages, has a direct impact on their cognitive abilities and therefor behavior. Chess for instance is known to develop the prefrontal cortex in a human, which is responsible for understanding the consequence and prevision. So why not teach the art of strategy to young children. If so, how to do it. That`s why I think this should be an on-topic example. – albert green Aug 22 '10 at 11:52

is it possible when voting for off-topic and not a good example, to put a little comment to explain the reasons? – albert green Oct 3 '10 at 17:21

Driving a taxi around london is known to develop the hippocampus ( pnas.org/content/97/8/4398.full ). why not teach children to drive a taxi, as a part of improving their cognitive skills? Seriously, a question that begins with 'How to teach ...' can't IMO be a great on topic example, as it deals with teaching, and not with neuroscience/cognitive science. Maybe if you change it to a questions about the underlying mechanism of learning, brain change, etc. – Ofri Raviv Oct 17 '10 at 6:29

up vote 3 down vote

added by Sagi Jaffe Aug 16 '10 at 16:12

up vote 3 down vote

added by Mark L Dec 31 '10 at 2:23

up vote 2 down vote

added by nico Sep 25 '10 at 13:51

up vote 2 down vote

added by Jeff Nov 10 '10 at 17:09

up vote 2 down vote

added by Nick Dec 20 '10 at 22:59

up vote 1 down vote

added by Pierre 303 Nov 11 '10 at 22:23

closed as off topic by Reverend Gonzo, Piotr Migdal, yigit, Edgar, Dori Dec 4 '10 at 1:23

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.

up vote 1 down vote

added by Pierre 303 Nov 11 '10 at 22:26

closed as off topic by Reverend Gonzo, Piotr Migdal, Edgar, Jeff, kadaj Dec 30 '10 at 12:24

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.

Not exactly related to the sciences. – Reverend Gonzo Nov 19 '10 at 3:53

up vote 1 down vote

added by Reverend Gonzo Nov 19 '10 at 3:33

up vote 1 down vote

added by PulpSpy Jan 4 '11 at 2:52

up vote 1 down vote

added by Hoa Long Tam Jan 11 '11 at 19:21

up vote 0 down vote

added by Randolpho Jun 2 '10 at 14:28

closed as off topic by Charles Stewart, IAbstract, zvolkov, Patrick McLaren, robin girard Jun 21 '10 at 6:50

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.

While related, it deals specifically with programming and is thus off topic. – Randolpho Jun 2 '10 at 14:28

@Randolpho: Really? You're going to exclude all discussions about code and algorithms in a forum dedicated (in part) to what essentially boils down to fuzzy computational analysis using computers? – Robert Harvey Jun 2 '10 at 15:08

@Robert Harvey: I'd like to keep all coding questions on Stack Overflow except where the issue isn't code but the actual understanding of the terms – Good Person Jun 2 '10 at 15:33

@Robert Harvey: I agree with @Good Person; building a neural network in C# is off topic, but discussing neural networks and how they are used is on topic. Modeling a neural network that can be built in any language could also be on topic. – Randolpho Jun 2 '10 at 15:49

Isn't this too computer-science-centric? – zvolkov Jun 17 '10 at 18:45

show 2 more improvement suggestions

up vote 0 down vote

added by zvolkov Jun 17 '10 at 19:00

closed as off topic by Jamie Banks, Yaser Sulaiman, morfu, nico, warren Sep 30 '10 at 12:43

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.

up vote 0 down vote

added by robin girard, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Aug 7 '10 at 15:17

closed as off topic by Jamie Banks, Randolpho, Tom Boardman, Christian, Yaser Sulaiman Jul 18 '10 at 0:22

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.

Best left to Stack Overflow, or a machine learning site. – Cerin Aug 4 '10 at 18:21

up vote 0 down vote

added by Tom Boardman Sep 13 '10 at 11:21

	Since glial cells are not (at least, to my knowledge) currently included in any mainstream cognitive models, this is about as close to a 'pure neuroscience' question as we're likely to get. I stuck it here as a test case. – Tom Boardman Sep 13 '10 at 11:25
	I don't think this is a good example - at least as it is. The question is way too broad, glia has so many functions that it would be impossible to really answer this question. Something more specific could be asking for references, for instance, on the interactions between glia and neurons for the synthesis/recycling of neurotransmitters. – nico Nov 21 '10 at 14:56

up vote 0 down vote

added by Reverend Gonzo Nov 19 '10 at 3:52

closed as off topic by Nick, kadaj, Tangurena, Daniel, mpacer Jan 16 '11 at 10:55

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.

up vote 0 down vote

added by Nick Dec 21 '10 at 12:36

What prevents runaway excitation (which might be evident as seizures). – Nick Dec 21 '10 at 12:37

up vote 0 down vote

added by Nick Dec 21 '10 at 22:10

up vote 0 down vote

added by Nick Dec 21 '10 at 22:15

up vote 0 down vote

added by kadaj Dec 30 '10 at 12:18

up vote 0 down vote

added by kadaj Dec 30 '10 at 12:23

closed as off topic by PulpSpy, koiyu, Mark Rogers, Tangurena, Daniel Jan 14 '11 at 12:03

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.

	Should parapsychology or other fields (arguably) considered psuedoscience be included? – Mark L Dec 31 '10 at 2:01
	@Solus That's supposed to be another question right? – kadaj Dec 31 '10 at 5:27
	@jase21: No, it's a meta-question. Your question is something that could be studied by parapsychologists, but I doubt it would be considered cognitive 'science'. So basically I'm asking if this question (and others regarding parapsychology or psuedoscience) should be considered off-topic. – Mark L Dec 31 '10 at 20:36