ArticleComputational brain & behavior2024
From Empirical Problem-Solving to Theoretical Problem-Finding Perspectives on the Cognitive Sciences.
Article in Computational brain & behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- What Makes a Good Theory? Interdisciplinary Perspectives.Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
- Reclaiming AI as a Theoretical Tool for Cognitive Science.Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
- The Problem-Ladenness of Theory.Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
- What Makes a Good Theory, and How Do We Make a Theory Good?Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
- Lessons for Theory from Scientific Domains Where Evidence is Sparse or Indirect.Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Meta-theoretical perspectives on the research problems and activities of (cognitive) scientists often emphasize empirical problems and problem-solving as the main aspects that account for scientific progress. While certainly useful to shed light on issues of theory-observation relationships, these conceptual analyses typically begin when empirical problems are already there for researchers to solve. As a result, the role of theoretical problems and problem-finding remain comparatively obscure. How do the scientific problems of Cognitive Science arise, and what do they comprise, empirically and theoretically? Here, we attempt to understand the research activities that lead to adequate explanations through a broader conception of the problems researchers must attend to and how they come about. To this end, we bring theoretical problems and problem-finding out of obscurity to paint a more integrative picture of how these complement empirical problems and problem-solving to advance cognitive science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.