The “Progress & Puzzles of Cognitive Science” letter series aims to capture the evolving challenges and opportunities in the field. We spoke with Ophelia Deroy, principal investigator at Mi3 and an editor for the series.
Mi3: Cognitive science often seems like a sprawling landscape of disciplines. Can you start by describing where the field stands today? Is it fragmented, or is there some unity?
Ophelia: That’s a tough one. Philosophers have been wondering about the unity of science for long – but I think your question is more about general perception. No one asks whether physics, biology, or economics are unified fields, even though they rely on vastly different methods, scales, and assumptions. We don’t question their unity because they have clear domains—the material world, life, economic systems. Cognitive science, on the other hand, deals with the mind—or, more accurately, minds. It tackles language, perception, decisions, morality, emotions, movement, memory, and so much more. The object itself is inherently diverse.
On top of this, each piece of the puzzle is scattered across disciplines—psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, linguistics. Cognitive science thrives not by forcing unity but by embracing this pluralism. It’s a conversation where everyone brings their tools and ideas to shared questions. The challenge isn’t to unify the field but to work together intentionally, respecting its diversity.
Mi3: That’s quite a balancing act. What role do you see philosophy playing in this pluralistic field?
Ophelia: Philosophy of mind isn’t separate from cognitive science—it’s deeply integrated. Philosophers don’t have a special set of questions, but they bring distinct methods: questioning assumptions, sharpening definitions, and probing for consistency across theories. For instance, philosophers can challenge reductionist tendencies or scrutinize the limits of computational models.
Beyond that, philosophy offers a broader lens, linking cognitive mechanisms to societal and ethical concerns. But the goal isn’t to impose unity; it’s to foster reflective pluralism. Philosophy’s strength lies in making the field more deliberate and self-aware without constraining its breadth.
Mi3: Speaking of breadth, what are some of the key puzzles and themes emerging in the series?
Ophelia: It’s hard to summarize all 36 perspectives—they’re incredibly rich and varied. But there’s a fascinating mix of enduring and novel challenges. Consciousness, for example, remains an unsolved enigma. Some argue for more powerful computational models; others think we haven’t even framed the right questions yet. It’s like chasing a shadow—every time you think you’ve grasped it, it slips away.
Then there are new frontiers, like the implications of large language models. They mimic human language in ways we didn’t think possible, but they raise profound questions: Are they thinking? Could they be moral agents? Cognitive science doesn’t just answer these questions—it reframes what we know about the human mind in light of AI. It’s a two-way street.
Other topics include comparative cognition, exploring animal minds and communication, and revisiting older theories like the Language of Thought. Collective cognition, which we focus on at Mi3, is another exciting area.
Mi3: And what about the future of methods in cognitive science?
Ophelia: Bridging quantitative and qualitative methods will be key, especially with advances in natural language processing. This integration lets us ask richer questions and gain deeper insights. At the same time, we need to make cognitive science more inclusive—diverse in its contributors and its data.
That means including perspectives from different cultures, languages, and neurodiverse individuals. For example, one contribution featuring Mi3’s researcher Justin Sulik explores the importance of considering how different minds and brains solve the same problems. What can we learn from minds that work differently? If we can answer that, cognitive science won’t just progress—it will become more human.
Check out the original article and the profile of Ophelia Deroy.
References:
Dale, R., Byrne, R. M. J., Cohen, E., Deroy, O., Gerschman, S. J., Hsiao, J. H., Li, P., Monaghan, P., Noelle, D. C., van Rooij, I., Shah, P., Spivey, M. J., Varma, S. Introduction to Progress and Puzzles of Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science, e13480, https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13480