<p>Are there any frameworks to evaluate the quality of a theoretic concept in cognitive science (ideally with references)?</p>

<p>For social sciences I found the following:<br>
Gerring, J. (1999). What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept formation in the social sciences. <em>Polity</em>, 31(3), 357-393.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T07:51:58.327Z
At the end of the day isn't it still an opinion though?  Is Gerring's evaluation method widely accepted and used in peer reviewing?
Spero
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T08:02:07.153Z
I think you are right! I guess there is always a huge subjective, creative part in the definition of a concept. Though I think it would be helpful to at least have some (maybe highly controversial) vocabulary to discuss about the value of a concept. I unfortunately don't know much about Gerring's definition.
thando
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T08:28:38.660Z
I would not confound social sciences (and most definitely not 'concept building' in social sciences) with arguably the more scientific perspective typically adopted in the cognitive sciences. I would consider any concept which evolves through applying [the scientific method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) 'good', or at the very least useful.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T09:34:23.250Z
My experience in cogsci tells me to always check if the sample set used in a study is biased. Just a few minutes ago I found a study showing that majority of stalkers are predatory and violent. Their sample set was obtained from police files. Needless to say that the more aggressive stalkers get reported to cops more frequently therefore the sample set is biased.
Spero
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T14:39:50.997Z
I think this is a great question. Psychologists should perhaps replace the term ,,theoretic concept'' with the more familiar term ,,psychological construct''. Obviously there are some great, useful and popular constructs such as IQ, Extraversion (as in Big5) or autism. But why are these constructs useful and popular as opposed to, say, the legion of one-off constructs that are daily invoked in the psychological literature?
matus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T16:44:14.560Z
Related: https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/9610/what-is-the-relation-between-measures-constructs-and-concepts
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-24T12:27:05.427Z
Thank you for the comments and the related question link! By intuition, I would also guess that the quality of a concept is in some way informed by characteristics of its operationalization.
thando
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-08T19:13:31.690Z
@StevenJeuris what a comment: First, you do not consider social science as a cognitive science (I suppose it is due to a confusion of the objects of knowledge with the level or focus of analysis), secondarily you consider this scientific field as less scientific (confusion about methodology, which is scientific or not but there is no scale of science).
hexadecimal
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-09T08:40:19.317Z
@hexadecimal Granted, perhaps I should not have opened that can of worms to make my point. I agree [the lines between social science and cognitive sciences are blurred](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/4421/21). I merely intended to highlight that they have a predominant different methodological focus and what makes a 'concept' (broadly defined) good in one line of research might differ entirely in another. In fact, this is likely why this question should be closed as too broad.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-09T08:47:51.450Z
My (reading it now unnecessary) reference to 'arguably the more scientific perspective' adopted in most cognitive sciences had the 'softer' theories if you will (or even atheoretical stances such as ethnomethodology) commonly used in social sciences in mind. Perhaps another way to put it is that I am under the impression there is less of a focus on 'closing the loop' of the [scientific method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method): less building on prior knowledge, less work put into developing general theories, much more emphasis on observation.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-09T08:54:36.877Z
A good concept in social science perhaps has a stronger focus on being _explanatory_, whereas good concepts in cognitive sciences are measurable/testable/repeatable—in line with [the 'harder' sciences (as opposed to 'soft' sciences)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science).
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-09T11:47:35.553Z
@StevenJeuris You should also refer, when you say "softer theories" to the little relevance for patients can have to know which part of the brain is active before or after a beautiful color image of the brain, which substance is in a high percentage, or how the expensive machines are handled (of the expensive hospital sector!)
hexadecimal
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-09T11:47:52.363Z
@StevenJeuris In summary, yes, probably those who support the "soft sciences" must learn SCIENCE (with capital letters) of those that establish differences between this science and "the others" even though they seem to mismanage some basic concepts making them flexible to say that they are "more scientific".
hexadecimal
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-10T08:51:15.660Z
@hexadecimal (for reference) [Let's continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/39320377#39320377).
Steven Jeuris
<cognitive-psychology>
What Makes a Concept Good in Cognitive Science?
thando
# What Makes a Concept Good in Cognitive Science?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-04-21)

Are there any frameworks to evaluate the quality of a theoretic concept in cognitive science (ideally with references)?

For social sciences I found the following:  
Gerring, J. (1999). What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept formation in the social sciences. *Polity*, 31(3), 357-393.

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: At the end of the day isn't it still an opinion though?  Is Gerring's evaluation method widely accepted and used in peer reviewing?  
> **username_0**: I think you are right! I guess there is always a huge subjective, creative part in the definition of a concept. Though I think it would be helpful to at least have some (maybe highly controversial) vocabulary to discuss about the value of a concept. I unfortunately don't know much about Gerring's definition.  
> **username_2**: I would not confound social sciences (and most definitely not 'concept building' in social sciences) with arguably the more scientific perspective typically adopted in the cognitive sciences. I would consider any concept which evolves through applying [the scientific method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) 'good', or at the very least useful.  
> **username_1**: My experience in cogsci tells me to always check if the sample set used in a study is biased. Just a few minutes ago I found a study showing that majority of stalkers are predatory and violent. Their sample set was obtained from police files. Needless to say that the more aggressive stalkers get reported to cops more frequently therefore the sample set is biased.  
> **username_3**: I think this is a great question. Psychologists should perhaps replace the term ,,theoretic concept'' with the more familiar term ,,psychological construct''. Obviously there are some great, useful and popular constructs such as IQ, Extraversion (as in Big5) or autism. But why are these constructs useful and popular as opposed to, say, the legion of one-off constructs that are daily invoked in the psychological literature?  
> **username_4**: Related: https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/9610/what-is-the-relation-between-measures-constructs-and-concepts  
> **username_0**: Thank you for the comments and the related question link! By intuition, I would also guess that the quality of a concept is in some way informed by characteristics of its operationalization.  
> **username_5**: @StevenJeuris what a comment: First, you do not consider social science as a cognitive science (I suppose it is due to a confusion of the objects of knowledge with the level or focus of analysis), secondarily you consider this scientific field as less scientific (confusion about methodology, which is scientific or not but there is no scale of science).  
> **username_2**: @username_5 Granted, perhaps I should not have opened that can of worms to make my point. I agree [the lines between social science and cognitive sciences are blurred](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/4421/21). I merely intended to highlight that they have a predominant different methodological focus and what makes a 'concept' (broadly defined) good in one line of research might differ entirely in another. In fact, this is likely why this question should be closed as too broad.  
> **username_2**: My (reading it now unnecessary) reference to 'arguably the more scientific perspective' adopted in most cognitive sciences had the 'softer' theories if you will (or even atheoretical stances such as ethnomethodology) commonly used in social sciences in mind. Perhaps another way to put it is that I am under the impression there is less of a focus on 'closing the loop' of the [scientific method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method): less building on prior knowledge, less work put into developing general theories, much more emphasis on observation.  
> **username_2**: A good concept in social science perhaps has a stronger focus on being _explanatory_, whereas good concepts in cognitive sciences are measurable/testable/repeatable—in line with [the 'harder' sciences (as opposed to 'soft' sciences)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science).  
> **username_5**: @StevenJeuris You should also refer, when you say "softer theories" to the little relevance for patients can have to know which part of the brain is active before or after a beautiful color image of the brain, which substance is in a high percentage, or how the expensive machines are handled (of the expensive hospital sector!)  
> **username_5**: @StevenJeuris In summary, yes, probably those who support the "soft sciences" must learn SCIENCE (with capital letters) of those that establish differences between this science and "the others" even though they seem to mismanage some basic concepts making them flexible to say that they are "more scientific".  
> **username_2**: @username_5 (for reference) [Let's continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/39320377#39320377).  

---

## 0 answers

