Hunting for Paradoxes: A Research Strategy for Cognitive Science

Abstract

How should we identify interesting topics in cognitive science? This paper suggests that one useful research strategy is to hunt for, and attempt to resolve, paradoxes: that is, apparent or real contradictions in our understanding of the mind and of thought. The rationale for this strategy is the assumption that our current thinking, and our various partial theories, of any topic are typically ill‐defined, inconsistent or both. Thus, contradictions and confusions abound. Isolating paradoxes helps us expose vagueness and contradictions and demands that we formulate our ideas more precisely. From this point of view, finding a robust and puzzling contradiction in our current thinking should be celebrated as an achievement in itself. Ideally, of course, we then make further progress by clarifying how the paradox may be resolved, by clarifying our theories or finding new data that may decide between inconsistent assumptions. This approach is illustrated through examples from the author's research over several decades, which seems in retrospect to involve a repeated, if largely unwitting, application of this strategy.