Haselager, W.F.G. (1999).
Levels of learning.
Developmental Science, 2 (2),
152-153.
In this comment on the debate between Baillargeon and Smith regarding the issue of infant learning and innateness, I argue that their basic disagreement concerns the issue of whether the learning mechanisms should be understood at a formal (Baillargeon) or at a causal-associationistic (Smith) level. I argue that Baillargeon's nativist conclusion is a consequence of her choice for a formal level of description of the learning mechanism. But it is precisely this choice that is being questioned in the current debate. Although a formal description of learning is often possible, it is entirely unclear, or at least in need of substantial further justification, whether such a description succeeds in outlining the causal mechanisms that underlie development. Analyses of the kind provided by Smith currently seem more promising because they are less burdened by these presuppositions about the nature of the learning process.