Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T12:57:14.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How do babies come to know what babies know?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2024

David S. Moore Open the ORCID record for David S. Moore [Opens in a new window]  and
David J. Lewkowicz Open the ORCID record for David J. Lewkowicz [Opens in a new window]
David S. Moore*
Affiliation:
Psychology Field Group, Pitzer College, Claremont, CA, USA dmoore@pitzer.edu; http://pzacad.pitzer.edu/~dmoore/
David J. Lewkowicz
Affiliation:
Child Study Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA david.lewkowicz@yale.edu; https://medicine.yale.edu/childstudy/research/autism-and-neurodevelopment/llamb/
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Elizabeth Spelke's What Babies Know is a scholarly presentation of core knowledge theory and a masterful compendium of empirical evidence that supports it. Unfortunately, Spelke's principal theoretical assumption is that core knowledge is simply the innate product of cognitive evolution. As such, her theory fails to explicate the developmental mechanisms underlying the emergence of the cognitive systems on which that knowledge depends.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e138
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Di Giorgio, E., Leo, I., Pascalis, O., & Simion, F. (2012). Is the face-perception system human-specific at birth? Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 1083–1090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumont, E. R. (2010). Bone density and the lightweight skeletons of birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277, 2193–2198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, S. F., & Epel, D. (2015). Ecological developmental biology: The environmental regulation of development, health, and evolution (2nd ed.). Sinauer.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, G. (1991). Experiential canalization of behavioral development: Theory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenesis. Developmental Science, 10(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
His, W. (1888). On the principles of animal morphology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 15, 287–298.Google Scholar
Lehrman, D. S. (1953). A critique of Konrad Lorenz's theory of instinctive behavior. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 28, 337–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewkowicz, D. J. (2011). The biological implausibility of the nature–nurture dichotomy and what it means for the study of infancy. Infancy, 16(4), 331–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewkowicz, D. J., & Ghazanfar, A. A. (2009). The emergence of multisensory systems through perceptual narrowing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(11), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewkowicz, D. J., Leo, I., & Simion, F. (2010). Intersensory perception at birth: Newborns match nonhuman primate faces and voices. Infancy, 15(1), 46–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. C. (2000). The triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lickliter, R., & Berry, T. D. (1990). The phylogeny fallacy: Developmental psychology's misapplication of evolutionary theory. Developmental Review, 10, 348–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, G. F., & Moore, C. L. (1995). Developmental psychobiology: An interdisciplinary science. MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D. S. (2001). The dependent gene: The fallacy of “nature vs. nurture”. Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Moore, D. S. (2008). Individuals and populations: How biology's theory and data have interfered with the integration of development and evolution. New Ideas in Psychology, 26, 370–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D. S. (2013). Current thinking about nature and nurture. In Kampourakis, K. (Ed.), The philosophy of biology: A companion for educators (pp. 629–652). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D. S., & Lickliter, R. (2023). Development as explanation: Understanding phenotypic stability and variability after the failure of genetic determinism. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 178, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2023.01.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noble, R., & Noble, D. (2023). Understanding living systems. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (1984). The nature of selection: Evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (2022). What babies know: Core knowledge and composition. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spemann, H., & Mangold, H. (1924/2001). Induction of embryonic primordia by implantation of organizers from a different species. International Journal of Developmental Biology, 45, 13–38.Google Scholar
Strohman, R. C. (2003). Genetic determinism as a failing paradigm in biology and medicine: Implications for health and wellness. Journal of Social Work Education, 39, 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witherington, D. C., Lickliter, R., & Moore, D. S. (2023). What taking development seriously means for evolutionary theory. Human Development, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1159/000535723Google Scholar