Category talk:Cognitive science literature

Criteria for inclusion?

Uhm, this category seems to include just about anything that has to do with cognition, making it maybe less useful than if it really focused on books primarily filed under cognitive science? --Merzul (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this category for?

I've noticed some articles that have been added to this category in the last couple of months, and I'm wondering if the additions are appropriate. There is a similar discussion regarding another category at Category talk:Dichotomies.

This category is a child of Category:Cognitive science which points to Cognitive science which says:

Cognitive science may be concisely defined as the study of the nature of intelligence.

Taking the words at face value, I would expect Category:Cognitive science literature to list books and articles discussing scientific views on the nature of intelligence. Consider the following.

Articles in Category:Cognitive science literature where category may be applicable:

1. Bicameralism (psychology)
2. Implicate and Explicate Order according to David Bohm
3. Language of thought
4. The Astonishing Hypothesis
5. What Is Life?

Articles in Category:Cognitive science literature where category may not be applicable:

1. Bardo Thodol
2. Great chain of being
3. Heaven and Hell (essay)
4. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society
5. Literature and Science
6. Metaphors We Live By
7. Sense and reference
8. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis
9. The Doors of Perception
10. The Machiavellian Moment
11. The Perennial Philosophy
12. The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead
13. The Secret (2006 film)
14. Wholeness and the Implicate Order

Are the above articles appropriate for this category? Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

---

This talk is essentially the same as the on-going Category talk:Dichotomies. So I may come back to discuss the specifics here, after the dichotomy talk is closed. Sorry to keep you waiting. Yet why not reconsider dichotomy, together with this agenda, as you mentioned on the other page? --KYPark (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Science literature categories

Someone asked above what this category is for. I remember, when creating it, that most "<name of science> literature" categories had subcategories for books and journals. It is meant to be mainly for just that: books and journals about a particular science. It does seem to have expanded somewhat, but I suggest comparing to the other categories in Category:Scientific literature, and seeing if that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete it already!

This isn't a category, it's just ridiculous. "The secret" (film) is neither scientific nor literature. But this is just the worst example I stumbled upon. Some texts are clearly not scientific in any sense, but dogmatic (You might like Buddhism, but there is nothing scientific about it). Some texts clearly aren't primarily concerned with the topic of cognition. Other texts are just obviously irrelevant – even though they do pertain to cognitive science. I recommend a fresh start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheseusX (talk • contribs) 22:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)