Many cognitive and evolutionary theories of religion argue that supernatural explanations are byproducts of our cognitive adaptations. An influential argument states that our supernatural explanations result from a tendency to generate anthropomorphic explanations, and that this tendency is a byproduct of an error management strategy because agents tend to be associated with especially high fitness costs. We propose instead that anthropomorphic and other supernatural explanations result as features of a broader toolkit of well-designed cognitive adaptations, which are designed for explaining (...) the abstract and causal structure of complex, unobservable, and uncertain phenomena that have substantial impacts on fitness. Specifically, we argue that (1) mental representations about the abstract vs. the supernatural are largely overlapping, if not identical, and (2) when the data-generating processes for scarce and ambiguous observations are complex and opaque, a naive observer can improve a bias-variance trade-off by starting with a simple, underspecified explanation that Western observers readily interpret as “supernatural.” We then argue that (3) in many cases, knowledge specialists across cultures offer pragmatic services that involve apparently supernatural explanations, and their clients are frequently willing to pay them in a market for useful and effective services. We propose that at least some ethnographic descriptions of religion might actually reflect ordinary and adaptive responses to novel problems such as illnesses and natural disasters, where knowledge specialists possess and apply the best available explanations about phenomena that would otherwise be completely mysterious and unpredictable. (shrink)

La tesis aborda uno de los temas centrales en la filosofía de la mente y las ciencias cognitivas: los conceptos como unidades básicas de la cognición humana. La tesis central que se defiende es que el contenido de los conceptos es determinado parcialmente por las comunidades a las que pertenecen los sujetos cognitivos, en la medida en la que dichas comunidades guían y constriñen las interacciones entre el sistema cognitivo conceptual y el entorno del que forma conceptos. La novedad de (...) la tesis es doble. Por una parte, cuestiona las teorías dominantes sobre el contenido de los conceptos —las teorías descriptivistas y las teorías naturalistas—, no solamente a partir de desafíos filosóficos que muestran sus limitaciones, sino también a partir de evidencia empírica sobre el efecto de las interacciones sociales en el contenido de los conceptos y, por tanto, en la cognición. Por otra parte, proporciona evidencia empírica sobre infantes ferales (i.e. niños salvajes), cuyo sistema cognitivo conceptual no ha recibido la guía de ninguna comunidad humana en sus interacciones con el entorno. Dicha evidencia permite sugerir que una explicación puramente naturalizada del contenido, sin la presencia de las comunidades, no puede explicar el desarrollo cognitivo conceptual de dichos infantes. Así, la tesis logra proponer un papel no trivial de las comunidades en el debate sobre la determinación del contenido semántico de los conceptos. (shrink)

This work focuses on the underlying conceptual structure of children’s category of living things from a cross-cultural, cross-linguistic perspective. School-aged children from three Argentinean communities were asked to generate the names of living things. Analyses were focused on the typicality, semantic organization, and hierarchical level of the names mentioned. We identified convergences among the names generated by children in all three communities, as well as key differences: the typicality, habitats and hierarchical level of the categories mentioned varied as a function (...) of children’s language and their direct experience with the natural world. These findings provide evidence concerning the role of language, culture and experience in shaping children’s folkbiological concepts. (shrink)

In English, ‘animal’ applies to humans and non-human animals, but in Indonesian, the word does not apply to humans. Previous research has shown that English-speaking children were more likely than Indonesian-speaking children to agree that mammals are animals and humans are mammals. As adults, Indonesian speakers accepted these statements, but denied that humans are animals. Thus, adults’ judgments were intransitive. In the present work, Indonesian-speaking children and adults were asked to revisit their judgments about biological categories following exposure to three-dimensional (...) objects as an analog for class-inclusion relationships. The results were striking: While most of the children changed their judgments after the analogical prompt to agree that humans are mammals and humans are animals, the adults stayed with their initial judgments that were collectively illogical but consistent with their naming practice. These results suggest a complex interplay between naming, logical thinking and development. (shrink)