======== WDL Dis. #18 (Bcc: all WDL participants) ======
From sc50@is6.nyu.edu  Sun Mar  5 20:00:25 2000
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:59:05 -0500
To: Dr John J Weng <weng@cse.msu.edu>
From: Susan Carey <sc50@is6.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: WDL Dis. #17

Dear John,

I couldn't agree more that a lot of the debate in the literature is merely
verbal--that is, we are talking past each other by meaning different things
by the terms we use.  So it is very important to be clear.  

But aren't you doing the same thing by "prefering to use the word knowledge
for representations acquired after birth?"  Why on earth would you want to
do this?  Once we are clear what we mean by a "representation" or by
"knowledge," isn't it an empirical question whether there are innate
representations or innate knowledge?  Take the innate representations of
bird song that guide learning in some passerines, or the innate
representations of human faces that guide attention to the face, or the
innate representations of object permanance that can be demonstrated in
neonatal chicks--why are these representations in any lesser sense than
representations that are formed through some process of experientially
driven learning?

>Why ``ad hoc?'' Currently, the main paradigm in psychology is to 
>study phenomena of human cognition and behavior.  This is the beginning 
>stage of a young scientific field.  

Eegads again.  The main paradigm in psychology, since Helmholz, through the
gestaltists, to modern day psychophysics, is surely the study of
perception.  That is where the best results are in psychology.  Do you need
to make pronouncements about the discipline of psychology?

I do agree, however, that psychology is a young field, in comparison with
other  sciences like biology, chemistry and physics.  Not in comparison to
AI, however.  Cognitive science, including AI, is a young field, in all the
ways you say below.  And I also agree that the study of development is
central to understanding the mind (obviously, since that's the approach I
take).  But let's not be imperialistic about it.  David Marr's contribution
was spectacular, even without development, as was Michotte's, Helmholz',
Hering's, Fechner's, Steven's, Rescorla's, Sperry's, Dehaene's, Triesman's,
Pylyshyn's... (that is, don't make the mistake of arguing that the
approaches you favor are the only ones or even the best ones to bring the
discipline to Kuhnian normal science).  Also, I would put additional people
as making the most important contributions:  Liz Spelke, Alan Leslie,
Allison Gopnik, Henry Wellman, Rene Baillargeon, Steven Pinker, Patricia
Kuhl, Karen Wynn--to name a few.

Susan