Modular and cultural factors in biological understanding: an experimental approach to the cognitive basis of science

In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Stich & Michael Siegal (eds.), The Cognitive Basis of Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 41--72 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

What follows is a discussion of three sets of experimental results that deal with various aspects of universal biological understanding among American and Maya children and adults. The first set of experiments shows that by the age of four-to-five years urban American and Yukatek Maya children employ a concept of innate species potential, or underlying essence, as an inferential framework for understanding the affiliation of an organism to a biological species, and for projecting known and unknown biological properties to organisms in the face of uncertainty. The second set of experiments shows that the youngest Maya children do not have an anthropocentric understanding of the biological world. Children do not initially need to reason about non-human living kinds by analogy to human kinds. The third set of results show that the same taxonomic rank is cognitively preferred for biological induction in two diverse populations: people raised in the Mid-western USA and Itza' Maya of the Lowland Meso-american rainforest. This is the generic species  the level of oak and robin. These findings cannot be explained by domain-general models of similarity because such models cannot account for why both cultures prefer species-like groups in making inferences about the biological world, although Americans have relatively little actual knowledge or experience at this level. The implication from these experiments is that folk biology may well represent an evolutionary design: universal taxonomic structures, centred on essence-based generic species, are arguably routine products of our ‘habits of mind,' which may be in part naturally selected to grasp relevant and recurrent ‘habits of the world.' The science of biology is built upon these domain-specific cognitive universals: folk biology sets initial cognitive constraints on the development of any possible macro-biological theory, including the initial development of evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, the conditions of relevance under which science operates diverge from those pertinent to folk biology. For natural science, the motivating idea is to understand nature as it is ‘in itself,' independently of the human observer. From this standpoint, the species-concept, like taxonomy and teleology, may arguably be allowed to survive in science as a regulative principle that enables the mind to readily establish stable contact with the surrounding environment, rather than as an epistemic concept that guides the search for truth.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,283

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Cognitive Modularity, Biological Modularity and Evolvability.Claudia Lorena García - 2007 - Biological Theory: Integrating Development, Evolution and Cognition (KLI) 2 (1):62-73.
Neuroethology and the philosophy of cognitive science.Brian L. Keeley - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (S1):404-418.
Carving the mind at its (not necessarily modular) joints.Jack C. Lyons - 2001 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (2):277-302.
Useful Theories Make Predictions.Andrew Howes - 2012 - Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (1):84-86.
The Original Sin of Cognitive Science.Stephen C. Levinson - 2012 - Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (3):396-403.
The Propositional vs. Hermeneutic Models of Cross-Cultural Understanding.Xinli Wang & Ling Xu - 2009 - South African Journal of Philosophy 28 (3):312-331.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-02-01

Downloads
34 (#472,961)

6 months
4 (#798,384)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Moderately Massive Modularity.Peter Carruthers - 2003 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 53:67-89.
Moderately massive modularity.Peter Carruthers - 2003 - In Anthony O'Hear (ed.), Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement. Cambridge University Press. pp. 67-89.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references