Irretrievably confused? Innateness in explanatory context

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Biology
• Evolutionary Biology
• Developmental Biology

Background:

• The concept of innateness in biology lacks a universally accepted, biologically rigorous definition.
• Existing accounts, such as Ariew's Canalization, face significant criticisms regarding their explanatory power and scope.
• The folk concept of innateness is widely used but requires a precise, scientific redefinition.

Purpose of the Study:

• To defend and critique existing definitions of biological innateness.
• To propose a novel, non-reductive definition of innateness based on environmental induction.
• To establish a clear and explanatory role for the concept of innateness in biological sciences.

Main Methods:

• Critically analyzed Ariew's Canalization account of innateness against criticisms from Griffiths and Machery.
• Developed a new definition of innateness centered on the absence of environmental induction.
• Introduced a novel analysis of environmental induction, emphasizing the contrastive nature of causal explanations and context-sensitive contrast classes.

Main Results:

• The proposed 'Noninduction' definition of innateness identifies traits as innate if they are not environmentally induced.
• Environmental induction is determined by context-sensitive contrast classes, offering a nuanced causal explanation.
• This new framework successfully integrates the strengths of the Canalization account while addressing its limitations.

Conclusions:

• The 'Noninduction' analysis provides a biologically respectable and explanatory definition for the concept of innateness.
• This definition accounts for the diverse properties biologists associate with innateness.
• The proposed framework offers a robust and adaptable concept for future biological research.