The end of radical concept nativism

TL;DR

This paper challenges radical concept nativism by formalizing arguments with computer science and information theory, showing that humans can indeed learn new concepts contrary to prior beliefs.

Contribution

It provides a formal analysis that refutes the claim that concept learning is impossible, highlighting the capacity for humans to acquire new concepts.

Findings

Formalization of concept learning using information theory

Identification of limitations in prior nativist arguments

Evidence supporting human ability to learn new concepts

Abstract

Though humans seem to be remarkable learners, arguments in cognitive science and philosophy of mind have long maintained that learning something fundamentally new is impossible. Specifically, Jerry Fodor's arguments for radical concept nativism hold that most, if not all, concepts are innate and that what many call concept learning never actually leads to the acquisition of new concepts. These arguments have deeply affected cognitive science, and many believe that the counterarguments to radical concept nativism have been either unsuccessful or only apply to a narrow class of concepts. This paper first reviews the features and limitations of prior arguments. We then identify three critical points - related to issues of expressive power, conceptual structure, and concept possession - at which the arguments in favor of radical concept nativism diverge from describing actual human cognition. We use ideas from computer science and information theory to formalize the relevant ideas in ways that are arguably more scientifically productive. We conclude that, as a result, there is an important sense in which people do indeed learn new concepts.