3

Are there any frameworks to evaluate the quality of a theoretic concept in cognitive science (ideally with references)?

For social sciences I found the following:
Gerring, J. (1999). What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept formation in the social sciences. Polity, 31(3), 357-393.

thando
  • 173
  • 5
  • 1
    At the end of the day isn't it still an opinion though? Is Gerring's evaluation method widely accepted and used in peer reviewing? – Spero Apr 21 '17 at 07:51
  • I think you are right! I guess there is always a huge subjective, creative part in the definition of a concept. Though I think it would be helpful to at least have some (maybe highly controversial) vocabulary to discuss about the value of a concept. I unfortunately don't know much about Gerring's definition. – thando Apr 21 '17 at 08:02
  • 1
    I would not confound social sciences (and most definitely not 'concept building' in social sciences) with arguably the more scientific perspective typically adopted in the cognitive sciences. I would consider any concept which evolves through applying the scientific method 'good', or at the very least useful. – Steven Jeuris Apr 21 '17 at 08:28
  • My experience in cogsci tells me to always check if the sample set used in a study is biased. Just a few minutes ago I found a study showing that majority of stalkers are predatory and violent. Their sample set was obtained from police files. Needless to say that the more aggressive stalkers get reported to cops more frequently therefore the sample set is biased. – Spero Apr 21 '17 at 09:34
  • I think this is a great question. Psychologists should perhaps replace the term ,,theoretic concept'' with the more familiar term ,,psychological construct''. Obviously there are some great, useful and popular constructs such as IQ, Extraversion (as in Big5) or autism. But why are these constructs useful and popular as opposed to, say, the legion of one-off constructs that are daily invoked in the psychological literature? – matus Apr 21 '17 at 14:39
  • Related: https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/9610/what-is-the-relation-between-measures-constructs-and-concepts – Arnon Weinberg Apr 21 '17 at 16:44
  • Thank you for the comments and the related question link! By intuition, I would also guess that the quality of a concept is in some way informed by characteristics of its operationalization. – thando Apr 24 '17 at 12:27
  • @StevenJeuris what a comment: First, you do not consider social science as a cognitive science (I suppose it is due to a confusion of the objects of knowledge with the level or focus of analysis), secondarily you consider this scientific field as less scientific (confusion about methodology, which is scientific or not but there is no scale of science). – hexadecimal Aug 08 '17 at 19:13
  • @hexadecimal Granted, perhaps I should not have opened that can of worms to make my point. I agree the lines between social science and cognitive sciences are blurred. I merely intended to highlight that they have a predominant different methodological focus and what makes a 'concept' (broadly defined) good in one line of research might differ entirely in another. In fact, this is likely why this question should be closed as too broad. – Steven Jeuris Aug 09 '17 at 08:40
  • My (reading it now unnecessary) reference to 'arguably the more scientific perspective' adopted in most cognitive sciences had the 'softer' theories if you will (or even atheoretical stances such as ethnomethodology) commonly used in social sciences in mind. Perhaps another way to put it is that I am under the impression there is less of a focus on 'closing the loop' of the scientific method: less building on prior knowledge, less work put into developing general theories, much more emphasis on observation. – Steven Jeuris Aug 09 '17 at 08:47
  • A good concept in social science perhaps has a stronger focus on being explanatory, whereas good concepts in cognitive sciences are measurable/testable/repeatable—in line with the 'harder' sciences (as opposed to 'soft' sciences). – Steven Jeuris Aug 09 '17 at 08:54
  • @StevenJeuris You should also refer, when you say "softer theories" to the little relevance for patients can have to know which part of the brain is active before or after a beautiful color image of the brain, which substance is in a high percentage, or how the expensive machines are handled (of the expensive hospital sector!) – hexadecimal Aug 09 '17 at 11:47
  • @StevenJeuris In summary, yes, probably those who support the "soft sciences" must learn SCIENCE (with capital letters) of those that establish differences between this science and "the others" even though they seem to mismanage some basic concepts making them flexible to say that they are "more scientific". – hexadecimal Aug 09 '17 at 11:47
  • @hexadecimal (for reference) Let's continue this discussion in chat. – Steven Jeuris Aug 10 '17 at 08:51

0 Answers0