Simon WolfLING 203

8/20/15Study Questions #1

1. Piaget’s critique of Empiricism stems from his assertion that it is impossible

for knowledge to form from or consist of pure and starkly defined

observations alone. He says that each empirical observation made by an

individual has behind it a purpose and direction, which he calls “schemes of

action.” So, rather than simply a connection or association between objects,

knowledge is, in reality, the categorization of those objects based upon the

“schemes” or intentions (to put it broadly) of a certain individual.

2. Piaget also states on the subject of Preformation that the infinite proportions

of all possible sets and boundaries within Language (which he equates in

many ways with mathematical thinking) are too immense to be contained

simply within the individual or the environment (“localized either in objects

or in the subject”).

3. In response to Piaget’s first objection to his approach, Chomsky details his

difficulty with Piaget’s phrase “biologically inexplicable,” agreeing that while

acquisition of language/knowledge is certainly “unexplained” by Science,

there is no reason to assume that it is inexplicable. Simply not having the

capability to trace its genesis with 100% biological accuracy does not

necessarily mean that an organic explanation does not exist.

4. At the heart of Chomsky’s response to Piaget’s second assertion is his theory

that cognitive functions and structures and their evolution should be treated

similarly—if not identically to physic structures such as organs. From my

perspective, I have a little trouble with this concept simply because, similarly

to the differences between phonetics and phonology (phonetics dealing with

concrete, physical phenomena and phonology the opposite), I feel that

cognitive and physical aspects of the individual are composed differently as

well.