In  hubey@pegasus.montclar.edu
(H. M. Hubey) writes:
>
>Oliver Sparrow  writes:
>
>
>>Which bit don't you like? "Cognitive' or 'science'?
>
>I like the initials
>
>It could be computer science, complexity science, chaos science,
>chaotic science, complicated science....
>
>- -
>

Ha! Ha! So funny I forgot to laugh.  Its me, the guy who posted the
original web site announcement.

But seriously folks, does anyone take this cognitive science
crap seriously.  I submitted a paper on the evolutionary role of
feelings of worthlessness and was told by an otherwise ferociously
critical referree that, although the theory was "bold and interesting"
and "plausible", feelings of worthlessness is simply not a suitable
scientific topic.  I was then told I was urgently in need of elementary
tutoring but when I turned to the gospel according to cognitive science
I was supposed to consult (Gleitman's) I couldn't find a single
reference to feelings of worthlessness or related topics, and we're
talking 800 pages here.  I can appreciate that its _cognitive_ science,
but it really does seem to me that a paradigm for psychology that
thinks its unscientific to take notice of what is conceivably the
most central motivational component of human behavior leaves a bit
to be desired.

Phil Roberts, Jr.

Feelings of Worthlessness from the Perspective of So-Called 
Cognitive Science
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5476