Evolution and Devolution of Knowledge: A Tale of Two Biologies
Anthropological inquiry indicates that all human cultures classify animals and plants in similar ways. This pre-theoretical knowledge also provided common ground for competing scientific investigations. Paradoxically, despite rapid advances in biological science, our citizenry's practical knowledge of nature is diminishing. Convenient choice of American and European students as psychology's preferred study populations obscures this fact. Here we describe historical, cross-cultural and developmental research on how people ordinarily conceptualize nature (naïve or folk biology), concentrating on cognitive consequences associated with knowledge devolution. Our approach integrates three disciplinary perspectives. For cognitive science, we show that results on categorization and reasoning from “standard populations” fail to generalize to humanity at large. For developmental research, we find that the usual populations studied represent impoverished experience with nature, yielding misleading results concerning the ontogenetic relationship between folkbiology and folkpsychology. For cultural and environmental studies, we show that groups living in the same habitat can manifest strikingly distinct behaviors, cognitions and social relations relative to it. This has novel implications for environmental decision making and management, including resource dilemmas such as the commons problem.
|Date of creation:||Jun 2002|
|Publication status:||Published in British Acadamy Conference on "Conceptual Knowledge", Jun 2002, London, 2002|
|Note:||View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00000144|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:ijn_00000144. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.