Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T20:34:15.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Concepts, core knowledge, and the rationalism–empiricism debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2024

Eric Margolis Open the ORCID record for Eric Margolis [Opens in a new window]  and
Stephen Laurence Open the ORCID record for Stephen Laurence [Opens in a new window]
Eric Margolis*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada eric.margolis@ubc.ca https://philosophy.ubc.ca/profile/eric-margolis/
Stephen Laurence
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Hang Seng Centre for Cognitive Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK S.Laurence@sheffield.ac.uk https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/philosophy/people/academic-staff/stephen-laurence
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While Spelke provides powerful support for concept nativism, her focus on understanding concept nativism through six innate core knowledge systems is too confining. There is also no reason to suppose that the curse of a compositional mind constitutes a principled reason for positing less innate structure in explaining the origins of concepts. Any solution to such problems must take into account poverty of the stimulus considerations, which argue for postulating more innate structure, not less.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e137
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Evans, G. (1982). The varieties of reference. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1981). The present status of the innateness controversy. In J. A. Fodor (Ed.) Representations: Philosophical essays on the foundations of cognitive science (pp. 257–316). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (2008). LOT 2: The language of thought revisited. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (2005). Number and natural language. In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., & Stich, S. (Eds.), The innate mind: Structure and contents (pp. 216–235). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (2007). Linguistic determinism and the innate basis of number. In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., & Stich, S. (Eds.), The innate mind: Foundations and the future (pp. 139–169). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (2012). The scope of the conceptual. In Margolis, E., Samuels, R., & Stich, S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of cognitive science (pp. 291–317). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (in press). The building blocks of thought. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leslie, A. M., Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (2007). Where integers come from. In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., & Stich, S. (Eds.), The innate mind: Foundations and future (pp. 109–138). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Margolis, E. (2020). The small number system. Philosophy of Science, 87, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2008). How to learn the natural numbers: Inductive inference and the acquisition of number concepts. Cognition, 106(2), 924–939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2013). In defense of nativism. Philosophical Studies, 165(2), 693–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2023). Making sense of domain specificity. Cognition, 240, 105583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and world. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar