And where is this anthropology in cognitive science?

Cognitive science was supposed to be interdisciplinary and (strongly) disciplined. As a result, after more than five decades, it took on a multidisciplinary form and not necessarily faithful to the idea of ​​the historical hexagon (i.e. a conglomeration of six founding disciplines). It did not have to be faithful to this idea at all. There were also no contraindications for its main trend to become a kind of new psychology with connections with neuroscience and AI, parallel to less obvious trends in cognitive science. Therefore, the irony or pretension felt in the title of the speech is not very justified, but only reflects the regrets of some philosophers of cognitive science and the disappointment of some social scientists. And yet – as I will show – in the case of one trend, qualified as cognitivist, anthropology came to the fore as a partner. So it was not used only as a reservoir of qualitative research findings for narrow interpretation within the framework of methodological individualism typical of the rest of cognitive sciences. This is the current of research on distributed cognition (DCog). This is the only case of consistent lack of discipline of cognitive science in the face of the dictate of individualism. Although I will focus on the ethnography of science, I will also try to outline the considerable openness of DCog research findings, including the ethics of care.

Witold Wachowski – assistant professor at the Department of Logic and Cognitive Science at UMCS. He mainly deals with the philosophy and methodology of cognitive science, which does not prevent him from collaborating with social and cultural researchers. He specializes in the theory of distributed cognition, as well as cultural semiotics and cognitive design. Last year he published the book “Distributed Cognition: from Heuristics to Mechanisms” (UMCS Publishing House).