The innate schema of natural numbers does not explain historical, cultural, and developmental differences
Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (6):664-665 (2008)
|Abstract||Rips et al.'s proposition cannot account for the facts that (1) a historical look at the word number systems suggests that the concept of natural numbers has been progressively elaborated; (2) people from cultures without an elaborate counting system do not master the concept of natural numbers; (3) children take time to master natural numbers; and (4) the competing advantage of the postulated math schema in the natural selection process is not obvious|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Shaun Gallagher & Andrew N. Meltzoff (1996). The Earliest Sense of Self and Others: Merleau-Ponty and Recent Developmental Studies. Philosophical Psychology 9 (2):211-33.
Birger Siebert (2005). Prospects for a Cultural-Historical Psychology of Intelligence. Studies in East European Thought 57 (3-4):305 - 317.
Eric Steinhart (2002). Why Numbers Are Sets. Synthese 133 (3):343 - 361.
Virginia Slaughter (2004). Emulator as Body Schema. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):415-416.
Robert C. Richardson (1997). Natural and Artificial Complexity. Philosophy of Science 64 (4):267.
Helen De Cruz (2008). An Extended Mind Perspective on Natural Number Representation. Philosophical Psychology 21 (4):475 – 490.
Paul E. Griffiths (1996). Darwinism, Process Structuralism, and Natural Kinds. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):9.
Roger Sansom (2009). The Nature of Developmental Constraints and the Difference-Maker Argument for Externalism. Biology and Philosophy 24 (4):441-459.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #142,372 of 739,304 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?