What are the cognitive sciences?

I think cognitive has become a very loose term applied in many fields. I studied cognitive psychology as part of a degree I took in the UK and was told that cognitive pschology incorporated different aspects depending the country and/or philisophical branch you were affliated. In Europe cognitive psychology has smaller parameters which include CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) which focuses on changing behaviour rather than delving into the underlying causes; as well as aspects of experimental psychology. In the States, however, cognitive psychology was a much broader field with hands in almost all branches of psychology. I was told this was because Americans and Europeans have differing influences in their respective histories of psychology, with Europeans branching from more philosophical influences and Americans from the Skinner school - (Pavlovian) - positive / negative reinforcement, behavioural manipulation... As a result Americans tend to value experimental evidence above anecdotal evidence.

I'm going off topic a bit, but my impression by the end of the course was that cognitive was a loose term to apply to any quantifiable and qualifiable pursuit or application of knowledge. But this is to be expected, so many fields which were once clearly marked now are influenced by other fields and lines are hazy. So be it.

"Cognitive sciences" and "Information Sciences" overlap in the area of computer modelling of brain functions and neural networks. Pattern recognition is a major aspect of this. Various mathematical models relate the two areas at different levels including logic circuits, and finite state machine theory. You should be aware also that some biologists such as Maturana regard "cognition" as merely a variety of "the general life process" to the extent the concept of "information" does not apply. Maturana follows Piaget with respect to cognition in that "mathematics" and "logic" needs to be "explained"
rather than utilised as explanatory tools.

Thank you. You've given me food for thought. I'm inclined to agree with the empirical cognitive developmental psychologists, whom Piaget and to some degree Maturana & Varela have influenced with their work, that logic, mathematics, and other domains in which the mind can solve problems require a deep explanation. There seems to be a network of communications forming between cognitive scientists, information scientists, and cognitive neuroscientists -- especially in places like Pittsburgh, Palo Alto, and La Jolla (to name but three) -- and I'm having a hell of a time keeping straight just who is doing what, and with whom. I appreciate your input.

I agree that the term "cognitive" is used rather loosely. I was thinking less about the clinical psychotherapeutic treatments involved in cognitive behavioral therapy (upon which Aaron T. Beck has had such a profound influence) than about the scientific interdisciplinary studies of mind, which totally broke away from behaviorism with the work of Herbert A. Simon, Noam Chomsky, and others in the U.S. in the 1950's and 60's. I know from personal communications with Simon that he was strongly influenced by European psychologists, and the iron grip of behaviorism in which John B. Watson (during his short career as a psychologist) and B. F. Skinner (during his very long one) held American psychology did not extend to Europe. Empirical studies of the internal workings of the mind virtually stopped in the United States for the 30+ years behaviorism reigned.

My take on the differing histories of European and American psychology in the 19th and 20th centuries is similar to yours. They have very different histories. 21st century psychology may unify the study of mind/brain(CNS)/behavior around the world, however. There are different traditions and different histories, but now scientists all over the world are starting to talk to one another and take one another's work seriously.

I think all scientific studies value experimental evidence over anecdotal reports. This does not mean that observation and protocol analyses aren't valuable scientific tools, however.

Your later comment on scientific methods prompts me to draw your attention to Maturana's analysis of problems of "observing the observer". That issue is raised for example in the early part of this link.

http://www.enolagaia.com/M78BoL.html