Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T13:04:54.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Steps to an Ecology of Knowledge: Continuity and Change in the Genealogy of Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Axel Gelfert
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present paper argues for a more complete integration between recent “genealogical” approaches to the problem of knowledge and evolutionary accounts of the development of human cognitive capacities and practices. A structural tension is pointed out between, on the one hand, the fact that the explicandum of genealogical stories is a specifically human trait and, on the other hand, the tacit acknowledgment, shared by all contributors to the debate, that human beings have evolved from non-human beings. Since humans differ from their predecessors in more ways than just the lack of a particular concept or cognitive ability, this casts doubt on the widely shared assumption (the “Constancy Assumption”) that, when constructing a genealogical narrative for a particular concept (e.g., our contemporary concept of knowledge), it is permissible to hold all other factors (e.g., individual “on-board” cognitive capacities) fixed. What is needed instead, I argue, is an ecological perspective that views knowledge as an adaptive response to an evolutionary constellation that allows for a diversity of selective pressures. Several examples of specific conceptual pressures at different stages in human evolution are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 67 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bateson, G. 2000. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 2002. “Foraging Versus Social Intelligence in the Evolution of Protolanguage.” In Wray, A. (ed.), The Transition to Language, pp. 207–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. 2003. “On Fodor's Problem.” Mind & Language 18: 502–23.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. 2006. The Architecture of the Mind: Massive Modularity and the Flexibility of Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, E. 1986. “The Practical Explication of Knowledge.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series) 87: 211–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, E. 1990. Knowledge and the State of Nature: An Essay in Conceptual Synthesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, E. 2007. “Genealogies and the State of Nature.” In Thomas, A. (ed.), Bernard Williams, pp. 181–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. and Krebs, J. R.. 1978. “Animal Signals: Information or Manipulation?” In Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B. (eds.), Behavioural Ecology, pp. 282–309. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Freedman, N. 1989. “Two Principles of Communicative Functioning.” In Rieber, R. W. (ed.), The Individual, Communication, and Society: Essays in Memory of Gregory Bateson, pp. 279–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, M. 2008. “Scepticism and the Genealogy of Knowledge: Situating Epistemology in Time.” Philosophical Papers 37: 27–50.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. and Osvath, M.. 2010. “Prospection as a Cognitive Precursor to Symbolic Communication.” In Larson, R. K., Déprez, V., and Yamakido, H. (eds.), The Evolution of Human Language: Biolinguistic Perspectives, pp. 103–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gelfert, A. 2008. “Learning from Testimony: Cognitive Cultures and the Epistemic Status of Testimony-based Beliefs.” In Botz-Bornstein, T. (ed.), Culture, Nature, Memes: Dynamic Cognitive Theories, pp. 34–56. Newcastle upon Tyne: CSP.Google Scholar
Green, M. 2009. “Speech Acts, the Handicap Principle and the Expression of Psychological States.” Mind & Language 24: 139–63.Google Scholar
Holloway, R. H., Broadfield, D. C., and Yuan, M. S.. 2004. The Human Fossil Record, Vol. 3: Brain Endocasts: The Paleoneurological Evidence. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kappel, K. 2010. “On Saying That Someone Knows: Themes from Craig.” In Haddock, A., Millar, A., and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Social Epistemology, pp. 69–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelp, C. 2011. “What's the Point of ‘Knowledge’ Anyway?” Episteme 8(1): 53–66.Google Scholar
Kusch, M. 2009. “Testimony and the Value of Knowledge.” In Haddock, A., Millar, A. and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Epistemic Value, pp. 60–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kusch, M. 2011. “Knowledge and Certainties in the Epistemic State of Nature.” Episteme 8(1): 6–23.Google Scholar
Michaelian, K. 2008. “Testimony as a Natural Kind.” Episteme 5(2): 180–202.Google Scholar
Michaelian, K. Forthcoming. “Is Memory a Natural Kind?” Memory Studies.Google Scholar
Plummer, T. 2004. “Flaked Stones and Old Bones: Biological and Cultural Evolution at the Dawn of Technology.” Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 47: 118–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. 2001. “An Evolutionary Perspective on Testimony and Argumentation.” Philosophical Topics 29: 401–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toth, N. and Schick, K.. 2009. “The Oldowan: The Tool Making of Early Hominins and Chimpanzees Compared.” Annual Review of Anthropology 38: 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., and Jackson, D.. 1967. Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Wilden, A. 1980. System and Structure: Essays in Communication and Exchange. New York: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
Williams, B. 2002. Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar