---
abstract: "Cognitive scientists often employ the notion of innateness without defining it. The issue is, how is innateness defined in biology? Some critics contend that innateness is not a legitimate concept in biology. In this paper I will argue that it is. However, neither the concept of high heritability nor the concept of flat norm of reaction (two popular accounts in the biology literature) define innateness. An adequate account is found in developmental biology. I propose that innateness is best defined in terms of C. H. Waddington's concept of canalization."
altloc: []
chapter: ~
commentary: ~
commref: ~
confdates: '63, 1996'
conference: Philosophy of Science (Proceedings)
confloc: 'Cleveland, Ohio'
contact_email: ~
creators_id: []
creators_name:
- family: Ariew
given: Andre
honourific: ''
lineage: ''
date: 1996
date_type: published
datestamp: 1998-06-18
department: ~
dir: disk0/00/00/03/30
edit_lock_since: ~
edit_lock_until: ~
edit_lock_user: ~
editors_id: []
editors_name: []
eprint_status: archive
eprintid: 330
fileinfo: /style/images/fileicons/text_plain.png;/330/1/PSA_20paper.txt
full_text_status: public
importid: ~
institution: ~
isbn: ~
ispublished: pub
issn: ~
item_issues_comment: []
item_issues_count: 0
item_issues_description: []
item_issues_id: []
item_issues_reported_by: []
item_issues_resolved_by: []
item_issues_status: []
item_issues_timestamp: []
item_issues_type: []
keywords: 'innateness, canalization, Waddington, heritability, norms of reaction'
lastmod: 2011-03-11 08:53:49
latitude: ~
longitude: ~
metadata_visibility: show
note: ~
number: ~
pagerange: 19-27
pubdom: FALSE
publication: ~
publisher: Philosophy of Science Association
refereed: FALSE
referencetext: ~
relation_type: []
relation_uri: []
reportno: ~
rev_number: 8
series: ~
source: ~
status_changed: 2007-09-12 16:26:40
subjects:
- bio-pop
- phil-sci
succeeds: ~
suggestions: ~
sword_depositor: ~
sword_slug: ~
thesistype: ~
title: Innateness and Canalization
type: confpaper
userid: 186
volume: ~