Cognitive Artifacts and Euclid

2019 ◽  
pp. 121-142
Author(s):  
Mateusz Hohol
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Edouard Machery

Chapter 3 examines one of the two concerns often brought up against the method of cases: The judgments elicited by cases seem epistemically deficient. This concern is captured by the first argument against the method of cases, which I call “Unreliability”: Cases currently used in philosophy as well as those cases that would be particularly useful for some central philosophical purposes are likely to elicit unreliable judgments. Judgments elicited by typical philosophical cases are similar to experimental artifacts—outcomes of experimental manipulations that are not due to the phenomena experimentally investigated, but to the (often otherwise reliable) experimental tools used to investigate them. That is, they often are “cognitive artifacts.” Chapter 3 concludes that we ought to suspend judgment when confronted with a philosophical case.


Author(s):  
Yan Xiao ◽  
Rollin J. (Terry) Fairbanks ◽  
Ayse P. Gurses ◽  
Christopher Nemeth ◽  
Emilie Roth ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-327
Author(s):  
Richard Pleijel

Abstract This paper aims to bring research on different forms of group-level cognition into conversation with Cognitive Translation Studies (CTS), the focal point of the paper being cognitive processes in translation teams. It is argued that an analysis of cognition in translation teams, which exhibit the properties of a cognitive system, needs to be placed on group-level. A case study of a team, translating the Hebrew Bible Book of Psalms into Swedish in the 1980’s, is presented. The empirical base for the case study consists of archival material in the form of draft translations and paratexts. The methodological question is thus raised whether, and if so in what way, cognitive processes may be analyzed retrospectively, and not only from a real time perspective. By treating the archival material as cognitive artifacts which have constituted an integral part of the team’s cognitive process, the question is tentatively answered in a favourable way. This, it is finally argued, opens up interesting possibilities for joining CTS with translator archives research, Genetic Translation Studies (GTS), and cognitive archeology.


Author(s):  
Vítor Duarte Teodoro ◽  
Judah L. Schwartz ◽  
Rui Gomes Neves

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 520-536
Author(s):  
Jacquelyn W. Blaz ◽  
Alexa K. Doig ◽  
Kristin G. Cloyes ◽  
Nancy Staggers

Acute care nurses continue to rely on personally created paper-based tools—their “paper brains”—to support work during a shift, although standardized handoff tools are recommended. This interpretive descriptive study examines the functions these paper brains serve beyond handoff in the medical oncology unit at a cancer specialty hospital. Thirteen medical oncology nurses were each shadowed for a single shift and interviewed afterward using a semistructured technique. Field notes, transcribed interviews, images of nurses’ paper brains, and analytic memos were inductively coded, and analysis revealed paper brains are symbols of patient and nurse identity. Caution is necessary when attempting to standardize nurses’ paper brains as nurses may be resistant to such changes due to their pride in constructing personal artifacts to support themselves and their patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document