2003-06-07

17 of 25 people found the following review helpful:

The book is a history of ideas. This breaks down into some light historical content, and much presentation of positions (sometimes with a little supporting argument).

As a history, I would compare this book to what you might expect from an account of the Cuban revolution written by a relatively conscientious Castro partisan: sensitive reports of leaders' statements, factual aspects painted in slightly punched-up colors with a vague and gentle brush, heroics and ideology emphasized. Naturally, you can expect a wildly inaccurate and polemic treatment of 'life before the revolution.'

As a presentation of ideas, its main virtue is its fidelity. Gardner has taken up the opinions of a handful of big-name cognitivists and represented them here. You could tell who was saying what without any citations, just from what is written. As such, it would be undoubtedly useful for reviewing just what claims people liked to make during the revolution, not too unlike having a set of extracts from classic guerilla texts.

The claims themselves are a parade of ad hominem attacks, conclusive strikes on straw men, vast overstatements, and unbelievable exclusions (e.g., cognitive psychology can't even peripherally be bothered with: emotion, cultural or social factors, or the state of the environment at any point). There is no use in adopting these viewpoints, nor in arguing against them. They are out of touch. Gardner himself has a few interesting things to say about psychology getting involved with epistemological issues, but here they don't amount to more than an appetizer. Too bad, since I thought these were pretty interesting and much more substantive than what Gardner was reporting on.

Given the above, I would only recommend the book as supplementary material in a broader look at the history of psychology, or in order to satisfy very casual interests in the history of cognitivist ideas. You should not bother with this book if you want an introduction to or a clearer understanding of cognitivism, nor if you want support for or ammunition against cognitive work as it is practiced. If these are your goals, you should instead get in contact with research, whether by text or by directly checking out articles.

1999-02-11

22 of 25 people found the following review helpful:

This is a very readable, very complete introduction/history to the thinking, questions and issues underlying cognitive science from its philosophical origins. It pulls many threads together to give a cohesive and complementary account of the development of the fields involved in cognitive science in a way that garners a strong feel for the field for those new to it, and that will grant new insights to those well acquainted with the field.

Damn impressive, all told.