※ 引述《popandy (pop)》之銘言： : 有人知道任何paper有引用語言學或心理學的實驗「企圖證明」 : a priori knowledge的存在嗎？ : 或許沒有真正證明到，不過想看看到底可以怎麼論證。 : Chomsky's generative grammar 雖然有名，但是似乎沒有嚴謹的生理實驗證明， : 可能因為我不是專業的，所以找不到吧。 : 聽說過有人用基因去論證generative grammar的存在。不過我一直找不到相關文獻。 : 如果有人知道心理學相關的實驗也請提供一下資訊吧！ : 謝謝！ Nativism 其實就是 rationalists' claim on the origin of knowledge嗎？ 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." 這跟我理解的不太一樣。我所理解的理性主義意義沒有這麼狹隘。 除了justify knowledge by reason， 也包含some abstract knowledge does not come from experiences. 另外有一點我不同意： "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. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.112.30.84 ※ 編輯: popandy 來自: 140.112.30.84 (06/06 18:04)