※ 引述《popandy (pop)》之铭言： : 有人知道任何paper有引用语言学或心理学的实验「企图证明」 : a priori knowledge的存在吗？ : 或许没有真正证明到，不过想看看到底可以怎麽论证。 : Chomsky's generative grammar 虽然有名，但是似乎没有严谨的生理实验证明， : 可能因为我不是专业的，所以找不到吧。 : 听说过有人用基因去论证generative grammar的存在。不过我一直找不到相关文献。 : 如果有人知道心理学相关的实验也请提供一下资讯吧！ : 谢谢！ Nativism 其实就是 rationalists' claim on the origin of knowledge吗？ 我查Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "However, this is a dubious explanatory strategy. Nativism is a claim about the origins of knowledge; rationalism is a claim about its justification. The fact that something is innate does not establish that it is true, let alone that it is necessary or a priori: someone might be born believing that space is Euclidean or that smiling faces are to be trusted, neither of which is even true." 这跟我理解的不太一样。我所理解的理性主义意义没有这麽狭隘。 除了justify knowledge by reason， 也包含some abstract knowledge does not come from experiences. 另外有一点我不同意： "Of course, showing that a concept is already present in a 6- or even a 4-month-old does not show that it is innate (although it is hard to extend such scepticism to an infant only 10 minutes old). But as the evidence mounts for earlier and earlier concepts and knowledge, the burden of argument shifts to the anti-nativist camps (which generally predict later onset)." 既然很早存在不代表天生存在，nativist should at least provide arguments for the fact that if it is not innate it is impossible for the concept to be present so early. Moreover, I think a more convincing argument comes from generic experiments. Thus, the burden of argument does not shift to the anti-nativist camps. --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.112.30.84 ※ 编辑: popandy 来自: 140.112.30.84 (06/06 18:04)