"The study of cognitive warfare has entered a period of remarkable conceptual productivity. New frameworks, new taxonomies, and new categories continue to emerge, each seeking to capture a previously overlooked dimension of conflict.
Increasingly, however, the field also appears willing to entertain concepts that are highly speculative, only loosely connected to observable mechanisms, and whose explanatory necessity remains uncertain. The recent appearance of alchemic warfare in a this journal is therefore less interesting in itself than what it reveals about the intellectual trajectory of the field.
Every mature discipline develops new terminology. New technologies and new forms of conflict require new analytical tools, and without conceptual innovation, strategic thought would stagnate. The difficulty begins only when the production of concepts starts to outpace the production of understanding.
Over the past decade the literature around cognitive warfare has undergone an extraordinary expansion of vocabulary: cognitive warfare, narrative warfare, epistemic warfare, cognitive maneuver, cognitive security, reflexive control, information confrontation, sense-making, meaning-making, memetic warfare and numerous other conceptual refinements.
Each promises to reveal a previously overlooked dimension of conflict. Each proposes a new framework, a new taxonomy, a new lens. Yet it is far from obvious that the field understands its object any better than it did five years ago.
That paradox is the subject of this essay."