How do we make a case for innateness?

To make a case that something could be learned, all we have to do is write down a plausible learning algorithm. It’s not as straightforward to make that case that something could be innate. Susan Carey and Liz Spelke have worked on uncovering the innate conceptual content, or core knowledge, that underpins cognition. In doing so Carey has proposed several desiderata for innate concepts. While none of the desiderata alone make a strong case for innateness, if something was innate, we should expect it to satisfy many of these conditions:

  • The concept requires rich integrated conceptual content. In other words, it cannot be reduced to perceptual processing. The content must be directly accessible to cognition.
  • The concept should be articulated in terms of representations created by innate perceptual analyzers.
  • The perceptual analyzers supporting the concept operate for life.
  • The concept relies on domain specific learning devices.
  • The concept is shared by other species.
  • The concept is represented iconically, rather than symbolicly.

Using these criteria, at least four distinct domains of core knowledge have been identified:

  1. Objects
  2. Approximate Number
  3. Agents
  4. Geometry