OJPP  Vol.3 No.2 , May 2013
Interactive Vision and Experimental Traditions: How to Frame the Relationship
Abstract: In recent decades, the cognitive view has had a considerable impact on the philosophy of science, and two reasons can for this be identified. First, philosophers have increasingly tended towards naturalistic approaches, as opposed to proposals that are more a priori. Second, the cognitive sciences underwent considerable development in the second half of the twentieth century. Motivated by the cognitive view in the philosophy of science, and within a naturalistic framework, the aim of this paper is to analyze the relationship between two pairs of views. On the one hand, I consider the theoretical and experimental traditions; and on the other, I examine the views of pure and interactive vision. The two pairs belong to two independent debates; one in the philosophy of science (theoretical vs. experimental traditions) and the other in cognitive psychology (pure vs. interactive vision). Theoretical traditions correspond to a conception of science according to which the goal of scientific practice is to formulate theories that represent the world, and in them experiments play only an instrumental role that is always subsidiary to theory. The model of science promoted in the program of logical empiricism is a good example of such a tradition. Experimental traditions, in contrast, challenge that conception of science by attributing a more important role to experimentation, which is said to provide its own path to knowledge.
Cite this paper: Estany, A. (2013). Interactive Vision and Experimental Traditions: How to Frame the Relationship. Open Journal of Philosophy, 3, 292-301. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2013.32046.

[1]   Alac, M., & Hutchins, E. (2004). I see what you are saying: Action as cognition in fMRI brain mapping practice. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4, 629-661. doi:10.1163/1568537042484977

[2]   Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., & Pook, P. K. (1995). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Rochester: University of Rochester, National Resource Laboratory for the Study of Brain and Behavior.

[3]   Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs. Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[4]   Churchland, P. M. (1989). A neurocomputational perspective. The nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

[5]   Churchland, P. S., Ramachandran, V. S., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1994). A critique of pure vision. In C. Koch (Ed.), Large-scale neural theories of the brain. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

[6]   D’Andrade, R. (1989). Culturally based reasoning. In A. Gellatly, D. Rogersy, & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Cognition and social worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[7]   Estany, A. (1999). Vida, muerte y resurrección de la conciencia. Análisis filosófico de las revoluciones científicas en la psicología contemporánea. Barcelona: Paidós.

[8]   Estany, A. (2001). The theory-laden thesis of observation in the light of cognitive psychology. Philosophy of Science, 68, 203-217. doi:10.1086/392873

[9]   Ferreirós, J., & Ordónez, J. (2002). Hacia una filosofía de la experimentación. Crítica, Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, 34, 47-86.

[10]   Galison, P. L. (1987). How experiments end. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

[11]   Gallese, V. (2000). The inner sense of action. agency and motor representations. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7, 23-40.

[12]   Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455-479. doi:10.1080/02643290442000310

[13]   Gardner, H. (1987). The mind's new science. A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: BasicBooks Harper Collins Publishers.

[14]   Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science. A cognitive approach. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226292038.001.0001

[15]   Giere, R. (1992). Cognitive models of science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

[16]   Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[17]   Gooding, D., Pinch, T., & Shaffer, S. (1989). The uses of experiment: Studies in the natural sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[18]   Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511814563

[19]   Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[20]   Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

[21]   Iglesias, M. (2004). El giro hacia la práctica en filosofía de la ciencia: una nueva perspectiva de la actividad experimental. Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, 20, 98-119.

[22]   Jeannerod, M. (2006). Motor cognition. What actions tell the self. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198569657.001.0001

[23]   Johnson-Lair, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and conciousness. Cambridge, MASS: Harvard University Press.

[24]   Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values. The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

[25]   Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.

[26]   Martínez, S. (1995). Una respuesta al desafío de Campbell: La evolución de técnicas y fenómenos en las tradiciones experimentales. Diánoia. Anuario de Filosofía, Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, 9-31.

[27]   Martínez, S. (2006). The heuristic structure of scientific practices: A non-reductionistic account of practices as heuristic structure. Chinese Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 53, 1-23.

[28]   Martínez-Freire, P. (2007). La importancia del conocimiento. Filosofía y ciencias cognitivas. A Coruna: Netbiblo. doi:10.4272/978-84-9745-172-7

[29]   Ordónez, J., & Ferreirós, J. (2002). Hacia una filosofía de la experimentación. Critica, Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, 34, 4786.

[30]   Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226668253.001.0001

[31]   Popper, K. (2002). Logic of scientific discovery. London/New York: Routledge Classics.

[32]   Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things. Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

[33]   Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2006). Mirrors in the brain: How our minds share actions, emotions, and experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[34]   Rosch, E. (1994). Categorization. In V. S. Ramachanadran (Ed.), The encyclopedia of human behavior. San Diego, CA: Academia Press.

[35]   Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[36]   Slaney, M. (1998). A critique of pure audition. In D. F. Rosenthal, & H. G. Okuno (Eds.), Computational auditory scene analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[37]   Van Gelder, T. (1995). What might cognition be if not computation. The Journal of Philosophy, 92, 345-381. doi:10.2307/2941061

[38]   Wolfe, A. B. (1924). Functional economics. In R. G. Tugwell (Ed.), The trend of economics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.