Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||The concept of innateness appears in systematic research within cognitive science, but it also appears in less systematic modes of thought that long predate the scientific study of the mind. The present studies therefore explore the relationship between the properly scientific uses of this concept and its role in ordinary folk understanding. Studies 1-4 examined the judgments of people with no specific training in cognitive science. Results showed (a) that judgments about whether a trait was innate were not affected by whether or not the trait was learned, but (b) such judgments were impacted by moral considerations. Study 5 looked at the judgments of both non-scientists and scientists, in conditions that encouraged either thinking about individual cases or thinking about certain general principles. In the case-based condition, both non-scientists and scientists showed an impact of moral considerations but little impact of learning. In the principled condition, both non-scientists and scientists showed an impact of learning but little impact of moral considerations. These results suggest that both non-scientists and scientists are drawn to a conception of innateness that differs from the one at work in contemporary scientific research but that they are also both capable of 'filtering out' their initial intuitions and using a more scientific approach.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nicholas Evans (2010). Speak No Evil: Scientists, Responsibility, and the Public Understanding of Science. [REVIEW] Nanoethics 4 (3):215-220.
Ian StJohn Fisher (1996). What Place Does Religion Have in the Ethical Thinking of Scientists and Engineers? Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (3).
Bertram F. Malle (2006). Intentionality, Morality, and Their Relationship in Human Judgment. Journal of Cognition and Culture 6:61-86.
Michael Weisberg & Ryan Muldoon (2009). Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor. Philosophy of Science 76 (2):225-252.
Muhammad Ali Khalidi (2009). Should We Eliminate the Innate? Reply to Griffiths and Machery. Philosophical Psychology 22 (4):505 – 519.
Anna Folker, Lotte Holm & Peter Sandøe (2009). 'We Have to Go Where the Money Is'—Dilemmas in the Role of Nutrition Scientists: An Interview Study. [REVIEW] Minerva 47 (2):217-236.
Nicholas Shea (2012). New Thinking, Innateness and Inherited Representation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 367:2234-2244.
Moti Mizrahi (2013). What is Scientific Progress? Lessons From Scientific Practice. Journal for General Philosophy of Science:1-16.
K. Brad Wray (2003). Is Science Really a Young Man's Game? Social Studies of Science 33:137-49.
Joshua Knobe (2009). Folk Judgments of Causation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (2):238-242.
Hauke Riesch (2010). Simple or Simplistic? Scientists' Views on Occam's Razor. Theoria 25 (1):75-90.
David Koepsell (2010). On Genies and Bottles: Scientists' Moral Responsibility and Dangerous Technology R&D. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):119-133.
Hanne Andersen (2010). Joint Acceptance and Scientific Change: A Case Study. Episteme 7 (3):248-265.
Added to index2012-10-24
Total downloads15 ( #86,080 of 739,140 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,464 of 739,140 )
How can I increase my downloads?