Yes, I agree that Fodor's argument is radical, but it is intriguing. As I
understand it he isn't attacking constructivism per se, but rather he is
attacking various attempts to reconcile constructivism with innatism. I
think the import of his argument is that once you introduce even a little
innatism, then constructivism (or "concept acquisition") is logically not
possible. I am thinking about the 1980 chapter "On the impossibility of
acquiring 'more powerful' structures" in LANGUAGE AND LEARNING (Harvard).
At 07:13 AM 5/1/02 -0400, you wrote:
>My naivete is showing again. How can I take whatever version of Fodor's
>paradox seriously? Nothing new can be learned is something violated
>regularly, or that structures/processes must be present at lower levels for
>those at higher levels, in light of biological development is hard (for me)
>to hold. The latter version feels like disguised reductionism, and if
>tricked into it, one could be looking for higher order thinking in
elementary
>particles. With all the things to think about, with limited time, my gut
>says don't spend much time here. But what do i know?
>
>bb
>
R. Keith Sawyer
http://www.keithsawyer.com/
Assistant Professor
Department of Education
Washington University
Campus Box 1183
St. Louis, MO 63130
314-935-8724
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 08:02:49 PDT