Ok. Simple question: what has cognitive science done for the world that has made it more rational than any other given field of psychology has to made people more rational?

For anyone curious, I am not a cognitivist.

""

Penrose uses Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (which states that there are mathematical truths which can never be proven in a sufficiently strong mathematical system; any sufficiently strong system of axioms will also be incomplete) and Turing’s halting problem (which states that there are some things which are inherently non-computable) as evidence for his position.
Searle has developed two arguments, the first (well known through his Chinese room thought experiment) is the ‘syntax is not semantics' argument—that a program is just syntax, while understanding requires semantics; therefore programs (hence cognitivism) cannot explain understanding. Such an argument presupposes the controversial notion of a private language. The second, which Searle now prefers but is less well known, is his ‘syntax is not physics’ argument—nothing in the world is intrinsically a computer program except as applied, described or interpreted by an observer, so either everything can be described as a computer and trivially a brain can but then this does not explain any specific mental processes, or there is nothing intrinsic in a brain that makes it a computer (program). Detractors of this argument might point out that the same thing could be said about any concept-object relation, and that the brain-computer analogy can be a perfectly useful model if there is a strong isomorphism between the two.[citation needed] Both points, Searle claims, refute cognitivism.""

And not for either of these reasons, but simply cause I've never seen a cognition or heard it and needed to use it as a term to achieve anything so it seems like a waste memory.