The baby in the lab-coat: Why child development is not an adequate model for understanding the development of science
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In P. Carruthers, S. Stich & M. Siegal (eds.), The Cognitive Basis of Science. Cambridge University Press (2002)
Alison Gopnik and her collaborators have recently proposed a bold and intriguing hypothesis about the relationship between scientific cognition and cognitive development in childhood. According to this view, the processes underlying cognitive development in infants and children and the processes underlying scientific cognition are _identical_. We argue that Gopnik’s bold hypothesis is untenable because it, along with much of cognitive science, neglects the many important ways in which human minds are designed to operate within a social environment. This leads to a neglect of _norms_ and the processes of _social_ _transmission_ which have an important effect on scientific cognition and cognition more generally
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Bill Wringe (2011). Cognitive Individualism and the Child as Scientist Program. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 42 (4):518-529.
Bill Wringe (2011). Cognitive Individualism and the Child as Scientist Program. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (4):518-529.
Jesse D. Sloane (2014). The State, the Nation, and Their Limits: Recent Publications on the History of Chinese Medicine. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47:218-223.
Andrew Brennan (2004). The Birth of Modern Science: Culture, Mentalities and Scientific Innovation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 35 (2):199-225.
Similar books and articles
Peter Zachar (2000). Child Development and the Regulation of Affect and Cognition in Consciousness: A View From Object Relations Theory. In Ralph D. Ellis & Natika Newton (eds.), The Caldron of Consciousness: Motivation, Affect and Self-Organization. John Benjamins 205-222.
Patricia H. Miller (2001). Developmental Issues in Model-Based Reasoning During Childhood. Mind and Society 2 (2):49-58.
A. M. & M. S. (2002). The Theory Theory Thrice Over: The Child as Scientist, Superscientist or Social Institution? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):117-132.
Denis Mareschal, Mark H. Johnson, Sylvain Sirois, Michael Spratling, Michael S. C. Thomas & Gert Westermann (2007). Neuroconstructivism - I: How the Brain Constructs Cognition. OUP Oxford.
Susan Carey & Elizabeth Spelke (1996). Science and Core Knowledge. Philosophy of Science 63 (4):515 - 533.
Linda B. Smith & Adam Sheya (2010). Is Cognition Enough to Explain Cognitive Development? Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (4):725-735.
Alison Gopnik (1997). The Scientist as Child. Philosophy of Science 63 (4):485-514.
Stephen M. Downes (1999). Can Scientific Development and Children's Cognitive Development Be the Same Process? Philosophy of Science 66 (4):565-578.
Luc Faucher, Ron Mallon, Daniel Nazer, Shaun Nichols, Aaron Ruby, Stephen Stich & Jonathan Weinberg (2002). 18 The Baby in the Lab-Coat: Why Child Development is Not an Adequate Model for Understanding the Development of Science. In Peter Carruthers, Stephen P. Stich & Michael Siegal (eds.), The Cognitive Basis of Science. Cambridge University Press
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads43 ( #102,099 of 1,934,852 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #270,038 of 1,934,852 )
How can I increase my downloads?