Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||The Modern Synthesis of Darwinism and genetics regards non-genetic factors as merely constraints on the genetic variations that result in the characteristics of organisms. Even though the environment (including social interactions and culture) is as necessary as genes in terms of selection and inheritance, it does not contain the information that controls the development of the traits. S. Oyama’s account of the Parity Thesis, however, states that one cannot conceivably distinguish in a meaningful way between nature-based (i.e., gene-based) and nurture-based (i.e., environment-based) characteristics in development because the information necessary for the resulting characteristics is contained at both levels. Oyama and others argue that the Parity Thesis has far-reaching implications for developmental psychology, in that both nativist and interactionist developmental accounts of motor, cognitive, affective, social, and linguistic capacities that presuppose a substantial nature/nurture dichotomy are inadequate. After considering these arguments, we conclude that either Oyama’s version of the Parity Thesis does not differ from the version advocated by liberal interactionists, or it renders precarious any analysis involving abilities present at birth (despite her claim to the contrary). More importantly, developmental psychologists need not discard the distinction between innate characteristics present at birth and those acquired by learning, even if they abandon genocentrism. Furthermore, we suggest a way nativists can disentangle the concept of maturation from a genocentric view of biological nature. More specifically, we suggest they can invoke the maturational segment of the developmental process (which involves genetic, epigenetic and environmental causes) that results in the biological “machinery” (e.g. language acquisition device) which is necessary for learning as a subsequent segment of the developmental process.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Paul E. Griffiths, The Fearless Vampire Conservator: Philip Kitcher, Genetic Determinism and the Informational Gene.
Matteo Mameli & David Papineau (2006). The New Nativism: A Commentary on Gary Marcus's The Birth of the Mind. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 21 (4):559-573.
James Maclaurin (1998). Reinventing Molecular Weismannism: Information in Evolution. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 13 (1):37-59.
Maria Kronfeldner (2009). Genetic Determinism and the Innate-Acquired Distinction. Medicine Studies 1 (2):167-181.
John M. Collins (2005). Nativism: In Defense of a Biological Understanding. Philosophical Psychology 18 (2):157-177.
Francesca Merlin (2009). On Griffiths and Gray's Concept of Expanded and Diffused Inheritance. Biological Theory 5 (3):206-215.
Brant Pridmore (2008). Review of Genes in Development: Re-Reading the Molecular Paradigm. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 23 (4):579-586.
Karola Stotz (2008). The Ingredients for a Postgenomic Synthesis of Nature and Nurture. Philosophical Psychology 21 (3):359 – 381.
Slobodan Perovic & Ljiljana Radenovic (2011). Fine-Tuning Nativism: The 'Nurtured Nature' and Innate Cognitive Structures. [REVIEW] Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10 (3):399-417.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads49 ( #25,904 of 738,451 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,337 of 738,451 )
How can I increase my downloads?