Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:05:00.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nature, Nurture and Why the Pendulum Still Swings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Brian Garvey
Brian Garvey*
Affiliation:
Trinity College, College Green, Dublin 2, Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In both popular and technical discussion we often find the pairs of opposed terms ‘innate/acquired,’ ‘due to genes/due to environment,’ ‘nature/nurture,’ and so forth. They appear to be used as if they all captured a genuine distinction, and the same distinction at that. A related family of opposed pairs is held to describe the difference between those who attribute a certain trait to ‘nature’ and those who attribute it to ‘nurture’: ‘nativists’ versus ‘constructivists’ is one such pair. Chomsky and his followers are often described as ‘nativists’ regarding certain features of language. On a cursory examination, many of the claims of Evolutionary Psychology bear the appearance of ‘nativism.’ That is, it looks as though Evolutionary Psychologists are making claims to the effect that many features of the mind which are often thought to be due to ‘nurture’ are in fact due to ‘nature.’ However, two of the genre's leading practitioners, John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, vigorously deny that this is their position.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 309 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2005

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

Ariew, A. 1999. ‘Innateness is Canalization,’ in Valerie Gray Hardcastle, ed., Where Biology Meets Psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Badcock, C. 2000. Evolutionary Psychology: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Buss, D. 1999. Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. and J., Tooby. 1997. ‘Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer.’ http:cogweb.english. ucsb.edu/EP/EPprimer.htmlGoogle Scholar
Cosmides, L. J., Tooby and J., Barkow. 1992. ‘Introduction: Evolutionary Psychology and Conceptual Integration,’ in The Adapted Mind, Barkow, J. Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D.C. 1995. Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. 2003. Developmental Biology, 7th ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Press.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, G. 2001. ‘A Developmental Psychobiological Systems View: Early Formulation and Current Status,’ in Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution, Oyama, S. Griffiths, P. and Gray, R. eds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S.J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard: Belknap.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, P. 2002. ‘What is Innateness?’ The Monist 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, P. and R., Gray. 1994. ‘Developmental Systems and Evolutionary Explanation.’ Journal of Philosophy 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrman, D. 1953. ‘A Critique of Konrad Lorenz's Theory of Instinctive Behaviour.’ Quarterly Review of Biology 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaurin, J. 2002. ‘The Resurrection of Innateness.’ The Monist 85.Google Scholar
Oyama, S. 1985. The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1994a. ‘Apportioning Causal Responsibility,’ in E. Sober, From a Biological Point of View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. 1994b. ‘The Adaptive Advantage of Learning and A Priori Prejudice,’ in E. Sober, From a Biological Point of View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, S. 1975. Innate Ideas. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Symons, D. 1992. ‘On the Use and Misuse of Darwinism in the Study of Human Behavior,’ in The Adapted Mind, Barkow, J. Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tooby, J. and L., Cosmides. 1992. ‘The Psychological Foundations of Culture,’ in The Adapted Mind, Barkow, J. Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waddington, C.H. 1962. New Patterns in Genetics and Development. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, C.H.: 1975. The Evolution of an Evolutionist. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, G. and R., Nesse. 1991. ‘The Dawn of Darwinian Medicine.’ Quarterly Review of Biology 66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, E.O. 1978. On Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Wimsatt, W.C. 1999. ‘Generativity, Entrenchment, Evolution, Innateness,’ in Where Biology Meets Psychology, Hardcastle, V. Gray ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar