Category talk:Cognitive science literature

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles

Cognitive science (inactive)

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

Psychology

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles

Neuroscience

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles

Books

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

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)[reply]

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:

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]