Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Do infants possess innate knowledge structures? The con side

Do infants possess innate knowledge structures? The con side The central question of development is how new forms are made, how some structure, or behavior, or competence that was not there before, arises. This essay argues for a mechanistic answer to the question of the origins of new forms. And, in so doing, the essay argues that the so‐called ‘innate versus learned’ dichotomy is logically flawed since ‘innate’ has no specifiable and mechanistic meaning. The essay considers first, a clear case of ‘innate’ structure: the origins of fingers and toes in embryology. The real‐time mechanisms which create fingers and toes, however, are general, probabilistic, emergent and distributed across several levels of analyses. The idea of ‘innate’– even though certainly applicable – has no substantive content and yields no predictions about the nature of these mechanisms. The essay considers second, a clear case of a ‘learned’ structure: the origins of the shape bias in children’s early noun learning. Again, the developmental mechanisms are general, probabilistic, emergent and distributed across several levels of analyses. Several criticisms of the argument against ‘innate ideas’ are considered and rebutted. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Developmental Science Wiley

Do infants possess innate knowledge structures? The con side

Smith, Linda B.
Developmental Science , Volume 2 (2) – May 1, 1999
Download PDF
12 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/do-infants-possess-innate-knowledge-structures-the-con-side-CgCrLTFD2j

References (53)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999
ISSN
1363-755X
eISSN
1467-7687
DOI
10.1111/1467-7687.00062
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The central question of development is how new forms are made, how some structure, or behavior, or competence that was not there before, arises. This essay argues for a mechanistic answer to the question of the origins of new forms. And, in so doing, the essay argues that the so‐called ‘innate versus learned’ dichotomy is logically flawed since ‘innate’ has no specifiable and mechanistic meaning. The essay considers first, a clear case of ‘innate’ structure: the origins of fingers and toes in embryology. The real‐time mechanisms which create fingers and toes, however, are general, probabilistic, emergent and distributed across several levels of analyses. The idea of ‘innate’– even though certainly applicable – has no substantive content and yields no predictions about the nature of these mechanisms. The essay considers second, a clear case of a ‘learned’ structure: the origins of the shape bias in children’s early noun learning. Again, the developmental mechanisms are general, probabilistic, emergent and distributed across several levels of analyses. Several criticisms of the argument against ‘innate ideas’ are considered and rebutted.

Journal

Developmental Science – Wiley

Published: May 1, 1999

There are no references for this article.