Since 2001, there have been copious applications of cognitive science to Shakespeare and some to the work of other early modern authors, but have these yielded any new perspectives on the drama or poetry of this time period? This article distinguishes scientism or theoretical approaches that simply uphold scientific findings from interdisciplinary work that prompts scholars to revisit the literature of Shakespeare or other authors anew. In doing so, the article troubles the uniform, normative, and seemingly apolitical nature of cognitive science as well as the ways in which this framework has in some cases created a cognitive outlook that removes the brain from its lived experiences in exterior environs. Because Shakespeare's cultural capital has made him central to cognitive studies in literature, the article's debunking of quasiscientific approaches has wider implications for cognitive examinations of literature, given the common merits and regressions that have resulted from this canonical inclination to focus on a single author.