Self-paced
Mario: Conclusion The field of cognitive science is not a genuinely autonomous discipline since Support it addresses issues also addressed by the disciplines of computer science, linguistics, and psychology. █ █████████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ █ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ████
█████ █████████ ██████ ██████ ████████████ ████ ██████████ ██ █ █████████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ████████████ ████████████ ███ ███████████ █ █████ ██ █████ ██ █ █████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ █ ██████ ███████████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ██ █████ ██████████
Mario's Argument
Mario says that cognitive science is not a genuinely autonomous discipline. Why not? Because a genuinely autonomous discipline must have a unique domain of inquiry, but the domain of cognitive science overlaps with other disciplines. Mario defines a necessary condition for a discipline to be autonomous—having a unique domain—and shows that cognitive science fails that condition, therefore also failing to be autonomous.
Lucy's Argument
Lucy disagrees with Mario’s definition, claiming that a genuinely autonomous discipline is defined by a unique methodology, not a unique domain of inquiry. Lucy supports this with the example of philosophy, which Mario agrees is autonomous despite the fact that its domain overlaps with several other fields.
Lucy rejects having a unique domain as a necessary condition for a domain's autonomy, and poses an alternative necessary condition: having a unique methodology. To establish the superiority of her position over Mario's, Lucy shows that Mario's argument conflicts with his own beliefs about philosophy.
11.
On the basis of their ███████████ █████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████████ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
If a field ██ █████ ████ ███ █ ██████ ███████████ █████ █ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ █ █████████ ██████████ ███████████
Mario disagrees with this, but Lucy agrees. Mario claims that a unique domain of inquiry is a necessary requirement for a genuinely autonomous discipline. Lucy thinks that a unique methodology is necessary but a unique domain is not. This is a point of disagreement.
b
If a field ██ █████ ██ ███ █ █████████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ █ ██████ ████████████
Neither speaker mentions the characteristics that any field that is not a genuinely autonomous discipline can or cannot have. We just don’t know.
c
All fields of █████ ████ ███ █████████████ ██ █ ██████ ███████████ ███ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ███ █████████ ██████████ ████████████
Each speaker proposes one of these only as a necessary condition for a genuinely autonomous discipline. However, we don’t know if either speaker thinks that these conditions, together or apart, are sufficient to make a domain genuinely autonomous.
d
Any field of █████ ████ ██ ███ █ █████████ ██████████ ██████████ █████ ████ █ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ █ ██████ ████████████
Neither speaker gives an opinion on this entire statement. To each speaker, lacking one of these conditions is sufficient to make a field not autonomous. However, neither speaker implies that the lack of both conditions is necessary for a field not to be autonomous.
e
Any field of █████ ████ ██ ███ █ █████████ ██████████ ██████████ █████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████████
Neither speaker gives an opinion about this. Mario thinks that focusing on unique issues is necessary for a discipline to be genuinely autonomous, but we don’t know if he thinks there are other necessary conditions as well. We know even less about Lucy’s opinion.