--- abstract: "Cognitive scientists often employ the notion of innateness without defining it. The issue is, how is innateness defined in biology? Some critics contend that innateness is not a legitimate concept in biology. In this paper I will argue that it is. However, neither the concept of high heritability nor the concept of flat norm of reaction (two popular accounts in the biology literature) define innateness. An adequate account is found in developmental biology. I propose that innateness is best defined in terms of C. H. Waddington's concept of canalization." altloc: [] chapter: ~ commentary: ~ commref: ~ confdates: '63, 1996' conference: Philosophy of Science (Proceedings) confloc: 'Cleveland, Ohio' contact_email: ~ creators_id: [] creators_name: - family: Ariew given: Andre honourific: '' lineage: '' date: 1996 date_type: published datestamp: 1998-06-18 department: ~ dir: disk0/00/00/03/30 edit_lock_since: ~ edit_lock_until: ~ edit_lock_user: ~ editors_id: [] editors_name: [] eprint_status: archive eprintid: 330 fileinfo: /style/images/fileicons/text_plain.png;/330/1/PSA_20paper.txt full_text_status: public importid: ~ institution: ~ isbn: ~ ispublished: pub issn: ~ item_issues_comment: [] item_issues_count: 0 item_issues_description: [] item_issues_id: [] item_issues_reported_by: [] item_issues_resolved_by: [] item_issues_status: [] item_issues_timestamp: [] item_issues_type: [] keywords: 'innateness, canalization, Waddington, heritability, norms of reaction' lastmod: 2011-03-11 08:53:49 latitude: ~ longitude: ~ metadata_visibility: show note: ~ number: ~ pagerange: 19-27 pubdom: FALSE publication: ~ publisher: Philosophy of Science Association refereed: FALSE referencetext: ~ relation_type: [] relation_uri: [] reportno: ~ rev_number: 8 series: ~ source: ~ status_changed: 2007-09-12 16:26:40 subjects: - bio-pop - phil-sci succeeds: ~ suggestions: ~ sword_depositor: ~ sword_slug: ~ thesistype: ~ title: Innateness and Canalization type: confpaper userid: 186 volume: ~